,s  .#^ 


v  ■ 


=^t 


fl 


//.  Z2..23;s 

LIBRARY  OF   THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


bt-v^ 


t> 


^* 


Di'viiion.lJ.^.C-  Ji  ^  C. 
Stction...\..\..\.\.rv' 


RJ 


Il-^^^^  U:^< 


:/; 


■^ 


-*i 


EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


PART  I. 


\ 


INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

TEXT. 

PART  IT. 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

BOOKS. 


J.  W.  McGARVEY,  A.  M. 

Professor  of  Sacred  History  and  Evidkncbs  in  the  College  of  the  Bible,  Ken- 
tucky University. 


CINCINNATI : 
GUIDE  PRINTING  &  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 

18S«). 


Copyright,  1886  bv 

J.   W.  Mc(iAKVEY. 


PREFACE 


On  no  other  subject  have  so  many  thoughtful  volumes  been 
written  within  the  last  Imndrcd  years,  as  on  the  Evidences  of 
Christianity.  This  is  true  as  regards  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion at  issue;  for  while  the  uninspired  friends  of  Christ  have 
never  before  defended  his  cause  with  ability  so  consummate, 
they  have  never  before  encountered  opponents  with  learning 
so  extensive  or  with  talents  of  so  high  an  order  But  among 
the  arniv  of  writers  whom  the  deepening  conflict  has  called 
into  the  field,  very  few  have  attempted  to  reduce  the  argu- 
ments pro  and  con  to  a  form  suitable  for  class-room  instruc- 
tion. Scarcely  one  of  these  writers  has  failed  to  widen  the 
field  of  investigation,  or  to  direct  attention  to  some  of  the  new 
])hases  which  the  controversy  is  ever  assuming;  but  since  the 
appeamnce,  a  century  since,  of  Lardner's  immortal  work,  no 
English  author  has  attempted  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the 
whole  subject.  Of  the  few  works  in  which  a  general  though 
not  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  subject  has  been  presented  with 
a  view  to  the  instruction  of  College  classes,  not  one  has  contin- 
ued in  general  use  to  the  present  day.  As  a  consequence, 
instructors  are  now  limited  to  the  unsatisfactory  method  of 
teaching  by  lectures  alone  on  tiiis  important  theme. 

These  considerations  furnish  tiie  ground  on  which  the 
author  excuses  himself  for  offering  to  the  public  the  work  of 
which    this   volume    is    the    first    iustallment.     The    work  is 

intended,  not    for    those  who    are   already    pntllcient    in    the 

(ill) 


CONTENTS, 


PART  I. 

INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

Intboduction, 1-6 


CHAPTER  I. 
Nature  and  Limits  of  the  Inquiiy, 

CHAPTER  II. 
Character  of  the  Various  keaoinga. 


7-12 


1»-18 


CHAPTER  III. 
Sources  of  the  Various  Readings, 19-24 


CHAPTER  rv. 
Means  of  Restoring  the  Original  Text, 


CHAPTER  V. 
Labors  of  Biblical  Critics,  and  Results  Obtained, 


25-40 


41-56 


PART  TI. 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 
CIIAPTKR  I. 


Evidence  from  Catalogues,    . 


5^76 


CHAI*TER  II. 


Evidonce  Irmu  Versions, 


r-81 


(vii; 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  III. 

Evidence  from  Quotations, 82-111 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Internal  Evidence, ,        .        .112-125 

CHAPTER  V. 

Positions  taken  by  Unbelievers, 126-175 

CoN'CLUsiox, 176-177 

Appendix,       .        .        .        , 1/-8-180 

Inijex, 181-186 


p.-m* 


INTEODUCTION. 


The  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion  depends  for  its  what  to  be 
proof  on  the  evidence  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  "  the  Christ,  *"^°^^  ' 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."    As  he  is  the  author  of  this  relig- 1  Messiah- 
ion,  if  it  be  proved  that  he  is  that  Christ  whose  coming  and  divinity  of 
work  were  predicted  by  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  -^^^^s- 
and  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  miraculously  begotten,  his  relig- 
ion is  proved  to  be  of  divine  origin,  and  to  be  for  this  rea- 
son possessed  of  divine  authority. 

But  should  we  succeed  in  establishing  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  ^\  Authen- 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  fail  to  show  the  authenticity  the  Script- 
of  the  writings  on  which  we  depend  for  a  knowledge  of  his"''^^- 
religion,  the  fact  established  would  be  of  no  practical  value, 
seeing  that  we  could  not  know  how  to  secure  to  ourselves  the 
blessings  which  the  religion  might  offer.     For  this  reiuson  it  is 
necessary  to  the  practical  value  of  an  inquiry  into  the  evi- 
dences of  Christianity,  that   it  furnish    conclusive  proof  not 
only  of  the  claims  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Christian  Scriptures. 

Moreover,  an  authentic  account  of  the  Christian  religion  3.  infniii- 
which    should    fall    short    of    infallibility,    would     leave    the  theScript- 
mind  a  continual   prey  to  doubt  in   regard  to  it.«!  exact  teach- """fil- 
ing and  requirements.       If  we  have  in  the  Christian  Script- 
ures nothing   more   than  an  authentic  account,  such   as   wise 
and  good  but  fallible  men  could  give,  we  must  be  content,  and 
not  pretend  that  we  have  more.     But  our  inquiry  will  not 
reach  the  result  that  is  desirable  unless  we  find  proof  that  the 
Scrij)tures  are  infallil)le. 

The  importance  of  this  iiKiuirv,  whether  to  the  believer  •r'n^P"'^ 

,  ,     ,.  11.  1         A  1      Unccofour 

the  unbeliever,  can  scarcely  be  overestimated.    As  respects  the  inqniry.  to 

(1) 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

unbeiiev-    unbeliever,  it  may  be  estimated  in  part  by  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

1.  We  must        -^    'YiiQ  rejection  of  the  Christian  religion  is  the  rejection  of 

accept  the  .    .  •'  . 

Christian    all  rcligiou.     The  adherents  of  any  other  faith  may  lay  aside 

religion,  or  ^j^g- J.  ^^^,^^  ^j^^|  accept  the  Christian,  and  many  have  done  so  ; 

none.  ^  '  *  ' 

but  no  man  who  studies  the  evidences  of  the  Christian  religion 

and  fails  to  find  proof  of  its  divine  origin,  can  find  such  proof 
in  favor  of  any  other.  As  Richard  Watson  has  well  said, 
"  It  is  universally  acknowledged  among  us,  that  there  is  but 
one  book  in  the  world  which  has  claims  to  divine  authority  so 
presumptively  substantial  as  to  be  worthy  of  serious  examina- 
tion." '  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Christian  communities  of  the 
earth  Avould  be  stripped  of  all  the  blessings  which  religion 
brings  to  a  people  should  they  decide  against  the  religion  of 
Jesus,  seeing  that  the  alternative  would  be  no  religion  at  all. 

2.  Seen  in  2.  The  Christian  religion  offers  to  every  man  who  properly 
offers.        accepts   it  the    forgiveness  of  sins   and  life   everlasting,    two 

blessings  with  which,  in  our  present  .state,  no  others  conceiva- 
ble are  worthy  to  be  compared.  The  importance  of  an  inquiry 
into  its  truth  is  proportionate  to  the  value  of  these  blessings.   ; 

3.  Seen  in  3.  If  it  is  true,  cvcry  man  who  disbelieves  it  will   suifer 
threatens.    ^^^^  ^^^  eternal  condemnation.     This  its  founder  repeatedly 

declared,  and  in  the  declaration  he  assumed  that  the  evidence 

which  would  attend  the  gospel  would  be  such  that  no   man 

could  disbelieve  without  guilt,  and  such  guilt  as  requires  final 

condemnation.     As  surely  as  the  religion  is  true,  di.sbelief  is  a 

fatal  sin. 

Importance        To  the  l)eliever  the  in<|uiry  is  only  less  important  than  to 
tf)  bcllev-       ,  1     !•  T.     •      •  ,  '    .     /•      i     /•        I  •  1        Tp 

ers:  the  Unbeliever,     it  is   important,  iirst,  tor  Ins  own  good.      It 

for  their     jjjg  faith  has  not  a  sure  foundation   it  may  fail  in  the  hour  of 

own  good :.,  t       i  c  i      •         •  *i  ^     ^  n     \ 

for  that  of  trial ;  and  what  loundation  IS  sure  except  a  knowledge  ot  the 
others.  evidences.  It  is  important,  .secondly,  for  the  good  of  others. 
We  are  required  to  give  to  others,  for  their  good,  a  reason  of 
the  hope  that  is  in  us,  and  this  we  can  not  do  with  satisfaction 
to  them  or  to  ourselves,  unless  we  know  the  evidence  on 
which  our  hope  is  based. 
Proper spir     •  Jn  order  tliat   onr  conclusions  on  any  subject  may  be  safe 

it  for  the 

'Theological  Institutes,  Vol.  I.,  105. 


INTRODUCTION. 


and  satisfying,  our  investigation  of  it  must  be  conducted  in  a  inquiry, 
proper  frame  of  mind.  Tnipiirers  into  the  evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity are  exposed  to  dangers  at  this  point,  varying  according 
to  their  preconceptions  on  the  subject.  Unbelievers  are  in^^^^^""'^ 
danger  of  so  earnestly  wishing  that  the  evidence  shall  appear  danger: 
inconclusive,  as  to  underestimate  the  force  of  every  proof,  and 
to  overestimate  the  force  of  every  objection.  Such  a  frame  of 
mind  is  inimical  to  the  reception  of  truth.  Unfortunately, 
many  persons  who  are  not  committed  to  unbelief,  api)r(iach 
this  subject  more  or  less  affected  by  this  bias ;  for  the  Bible 
condemns  all  men  who  are  not  obedient  believers,  and  thus  it 
arouses  a  degree  of  antagonism  within  them  at  the  very  time 
that  they  are  investigating  its  claims.  He  who  would  avoid 
an  unjust  judgment  against  the  Bible  must  suppress  this  tend- 
ency, and  be  perfectly  willing  that  the  Bible  shall  prove  itself 
the  word  of  God. 

The  believer,  on  the  other  hand,  is  in  danger  of  pursuing  '^^^  of  the 

.  believer. 

the  inquiry  with  so  fixed  a  determination  that  the  Bible  shall 
be  found  true,  as  to  lead  him  to  accept  shallow  sophisms  for 
sound  arguments,  and  to  disregard  the  force  of  serious  objec- 
tions. Such  an  inquirer,  should  he  afterw^ard  exercise  a  calmer 
judgment,  must  look  back  with  distrust  upon  his  former  con- 
clusions and  experience  a  consequent  weakening  of  his  faith. 

There  is  a  proper  place  and  work  for  the  zealous  polemic  The  true 
on  the  subject,  especially  in  the  field  of  controversy  where  bold  *^'"  ' 
and  often  unscrupulous  assailants  are  to  be  met ;  but  the  stu- 
dent and  the  teacher  should  assume  the  spirit  of  an  inquirer 
or  a  judge,  rather  than  that  of  an  advocate.     By  this  must  not 
be  understood  a  spirit  of  indiflference.'     The  judge  before  whom 

'"If    iniliHonMice  to  tho  result  he  docs  not  A'how,  or  pretend  to  .srrj/, 

be  an  essential  qualification  for  an  whether  there  lie  a  God  or  not;  or 

investigator  of  the  Scriptures,  then  whether,  if  there  be,  He  takes  any 

I  must  give  up  all    hope  of   ever  interest  in  human  affairs;  or  wheth- 

being  one.    To  the  result  I  can  not  er,  if  He  does,  it  much  imports  us 

be  indifTerent  if  I  wotild  ;  for  there  to  know;   or  whether,  if  He  has 

are  all  my  hopes."    (Calvin  Stowe,  revealed  that  knowledge,  it  is  pos- 

HiMnry  of  the  Ilooksf  of  (lif  Bihlr,  'i"i4).  sible  or  impossible  for  us  to  nsrer- 

'•  When  I  hear  some  youth  tell-  tain  it;  when  I  hear  him   further 

ing  me.  with  a  simpering  faci',  that  saying,  that  meantime  he  is  dis- 


The  nflSrm 
ative  to  be 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

a  man  of  previous  good  character  is  being  tried  under  the 
charge  of  an  infamous  crime,  would  be  unfit  for  his  high  office, 
if,  while  enforcing  with  impartiality  the  rules  of  evidence,  he 
should  have  no  wish  to  see  the  man's  innocence  established. 
So,  in  })rosecuting  an  inquiry  into  the  evidences  of  Christianity, 
while  the  student  must  guard  vigilantly  against  self-deception, 
he  should  most  earnestly  wish  that  a  religion  which  confers 
upon  men  so  much  good  in  this  life,  and  promises  so  much 
more  in  the  life  to  come,  may  prove  to  be  unquestionably 
true. 

Many  persons,  in  studying  the  claims  of  Christianity,  take 
heard  up  the  objcctious  that  are  urged  against  it  before  they  learn 
before  ihe   ^y}^at  it  is,  or  examine  the  evidences  in  its  favor.^     Thev  hear 

negative.  '         ^  " 

the  negative  in  the  debate  before  the  affirmative ;  they  allow 
the  witnesses  for  the  defendant  to  testify  before  they  hear  the 
plaintiff  state  his  case ;  they  read  books  and  attend  lectures  in 
opposition  to  the  Bible,  when  they  know  but  little  of  its  con- 
tents and  still  less  of  its  evidences.  They  often  decide  the 
question  after  hearing  only  one  side,  and  that  the  side  which 
should  be  heard  last,  not  first.  This  is  a  reversal  of  the  order 
established  in  all  courts  of  justice,  in  all  well  conducted  dis- 
cussions, in  all  scientific  investigations.  Common  sense  and 
the  maxims  of  justice  alike  demand  that  we  hear  first  the  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  a  proposition,  and  afterward  those  against 

posed  to  make  himself  very  easy  in  position  of   Part  I.  of   liis  Age  of 

the  midst  of   these   uncertainties,  Reason,    which   lie    published    in 

anil  to  await  the  great  revelation  advance  of  Part  II. :  "  I  had  neither 

of  the  future  with  philosophical  —  P>ible  nor  Testament  to  refer  lo, 

that  is,  heing  interpreted,  iiliotic —  though  1  was  writing  against  both." 

tranquilMty,  I  see  that,  in  point  of  After  this  confession,  it  is  n()t  ,sur- 

fact,  he  has  never  entered  into  the  prising  to  hear  iiim  .say,  in  Part  II. : 

question  at  all ;  that  he  has  failed  "  I  have  now  furnished  myself  with 

to  realize  the  terrible  moment  of  a  Bible  and  a  Testament,  and  I  can 

the  questions  (however  they  may  say  also  that  I  have  found  them  to 

be  decided)    of   which    he   speaks  be  much  worse  books  than  I  had 

with    such     amazing     flippancy."  conceived."    {Prffacr  to  Agi:  oj  liea- 

( Henry  Rogers.     EclipKc  of  Faith,  mn,  Part  II.)     A  man  so  unjust  as 

31.)  to  assail  a  l)o<»k  whicli  he  had  never 

'  We  have  a  striking  example  ol  read,  would  l>e  exj)ected  to  read  it, 

this  in  the  notorious  Ttiomas  Paine,  if  at  all,  for  tiie  purpose  of  finding 

who  says,  in  reference  to  the  com-  itWftrse  than  be  liad  represented  it. 


INTRODUCTION.  O 

it.  He  who  reverses  this  order  j)rejudges  the  ease,  and  comes 
to  the  consideration  of  the  affirmative  evidence  in  a  frame  of 
mind  unfavorable  to  a  candid  hearing;  or  a  just  decision.  If 
we  hear  much  evil  said  of  a  man  before  we  form  his  acquaint- 
ance, we  are  jircjudiced  ag;ainst  liim  ;  whereas,  had  we  known 
him  first  the  evil  speech  that  we  heard  might  seem  to  be  only 
calumny.  Unfortunately  for  the  great  majority  of  unbelievers, 
they  have  pursued  this  improper  method,  and  then  after  form- 
ing their  opinions,  have  either  neglected  the  Bible  and  its  evi- 
dences entirely,  or  have  come  to  the  study  of  them  with  an 
unfriendly  spirit. 

In  the  investigation  of  any  question  which  is  a  subject  of  ^'''"  '^^  ^^^ 
controversy,  it  is  desirable  to  begin  with  admitted  facts,  and  to 
take  the  successive  steps  of  the  inquiry  in  such  an  order  that 
neither  shall  in  any  degree  involve  its  successor.  In  the  })res- 
ent  instance  we  may  begin  with  the  undisputed  fact  that  we 
now  have  a  collection  of  writings  making  up  the  Bible,  and 
that  these  are  said  to  have  been  composed  many  centuries  ago 
by  men  divinely  inspired  for  this  purpose.  Should  we  first  in- 
quire as  to  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  and  then 
inquire  as  to  the  canonicity  of  its  several  books,  our  first  in- 
quiry would  overlap  and  involve  the  second.  But  should  we 
first  inquire  as  to  the  uncorrupted  preservation  of  the  books ; 
then,  as  to  their  authorship ;  then,  as  to  their  authenticity  ; 
then,  as  to  the  inspiration  and  infallibility  of  its  writers,  we 
would  have  a  series  of  incpiiries,  every  one  of  which  would 
have  an  intrinsic  value  independent  of  the  others,  and  no  one 
of  which  would  overUij)  its  successor.  We  would  also  have  in 
this  series  of  inquiries  all  that  is  necessary  to  the  discussion  of 
both  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  We  would  then  be  at  liberty  to 
give  attention  to  any  other  evidences  not  included  in  this  line 
of  argument,  and  also  to  objections  not  thus  far  encountered. 
Such  is  the  plan  of  the  present  work.  It  proposes  an  inquiry 
into  the   fi)llowing  topics,  in  the  order  here  given: 

I.  The  Integrity  of  the  New  Testament  Books. 

II.  Their  Genuineness. 

III.  Their  Authenticity. 


b  INTRODUCTION. 

IV.  The  Inspiration  of  Their  Writers. 

V.  Other  Evidences  of  the  Divine  Origin  of  Christianity. 

VI.  The  Integrity,  Genuineness,  Authenticity  and  Inspi- 
ration of  the  Old  Testament  Books. 

In  conducting  all  of  these  inquiries  it  is  proposed  to  state 
fully  and  to  consider  fairly  the  principal  objections  and  counter- 
arguments of  unbelievers. 

It  is  also  proposed  to  collect  in  this  volume,  in  the  form 
of  foot-notes  and  appendixes,  many  valuable  documents  from 
the  pens  of  both  ancient  and  modern  writers,  which  have 
important  bearings  on  the  subject,  but  which  are  now  inac- 
cessible except  to  those  who  have  the  use  of  costly  libraries. 
These  documents,  it  is  thought,  will  add  great  value  to  the 
work,  independently  of  its  line  of  argument. 


PART  I. 

ijS'tegrity  of  the  jstew  testaaieki^ 

TEXT. 


CHAPTER  I. 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  THE  INQUIRY, 


1.  Bv  the  inteerritv  of  an  ancient  book  is  meant  its  whole- ^ff"*"°° 

fe       .  ^  of  terms. 

ncss,  or  its  nncoriMij)te<l  preservation.  The  integrity  of  a  book 
is  preserved  when  it  has  been  transmitted  without  material 
change  ;  that  is,  change  which  affects  its  meajiing.  Wc  may 
also  affirm  the  integrity  of  a  document,  when,  though  material 
changes  have  been  made  in  it,  we  shall  have  detected  these  and 
restored  the  original  readings.  The  branch  of  science  which 
treats  of  this  subject  is  called  Textual  Criticism,  and  some- 
times, when  ap|)li('d  to  the  books  of  the  l>il)l<'.  Tiiblieal  Criti- 
cism. Its  province  is  to  ascertain,  first,  wiiat  dilVcrenees  of 
reading,  if  any,  are  to  be  linmd  in  the  \arious  cn|»ies  of  the 
book;  and  second,  to  (leterniine  which  of  the  various  readings 
is  the  original  one. 

2.  This   inciuirv  became    necessarv   from   the   fa<t    that    alP"^^'**'°"  °' 

1        1  r       1  •    1  •  ■  •  .tills  in- 

books  ot  whicli  many  copu's  were  made  bcfoi-e  the  invention  olquiry,  er- 
l)rinting,  underwent  ehamres  throuuh  the  mistakes  of  copvists,  ^^  "^ ""' 
and  were  liable  to  intentional  alterations.    There  is  not  a  writ- ists. 

(7) 


8 


INTEGRITY  OF  THE 


numerous 
in  the 
classics, 


ing  of  antiquity  whieli  has  come  clown  to  our  age  without 
many  such  changes.  A  large  part  of  the  labor  of  the  editors 
of  Greek  and  Latin  classics  consists  in  correcting  as  best  they 
can  the  erroneous  readings  thus  introduced  into  these  works. 
It  was  stated  by  Dr.  Bentley,  a  celebrated  English  scholar  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  that  he  had  himself  seen  in  a  few  cop- 
ies of  the  comedies  of  Terence,  a  Latin  writer  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ,  as  many  as  20,0()()  various  readings,  al- 
though the  work  is  not  near  so  large  as  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  few  copies  compared  were  not  examined  with  very 
great  minuteness.  Yet  Terence,  he  declared,  was  in  a  better 
condition  in  this  respect  than  almost  any  other  classic*  The 
same  writer  mentions  several  smaller  works  in  which  the  varia- 
tions are  as  numerous  as  the  lines,  and  some  which  on  this  ac- 
dreadedby  count  have  become  a  "  mere  heaj)  of  errors."^  Ancient  authors 
authors,      were  well  aware  of  this  liability  to   change,  and   they   had  a 

'  "  Terence  is  now  in  one  of  the  Broukliiiise  (170iS),  you  liave  a  reg- 
best  conditions  of  any  of  the  clas-  ister  of  various  lections  in  the  close 
sic  writers ;  the  oldest  and  best  of  that  book,  where  you  may  see, 
copy  of  him  is  now  in  the  Vatican  at  the  first  view,  that  they  are  as 
Library,  which  comes  nearest  to  many  as  the  lines.  The  same  is 
the  poet's  own  hand;  but  even  visible  in  Plautus,  set  out  by  Pa- 
that  has  hundreds  of  errors,  most  reus.  I  myself,  during  my  travels, 
of  which  may  be  mended  out  of  have  had  the  opportunity  to  exam- 
other  exemplars  that  are  otherwise  ine  several  MSS.  of  the  j)()et  Ma- 
more  recent  and  of  inferior  value,  nilius,  and  c^an  assure  you  that  the 
I  myself  have  collated  several,  and  variations  I  have  met  with  are 
do  aiJirm  that  I  have  seen  twenty  twice  as  many  as  all  the  lines  of 
thousand  various  lections  in  that  the  book."  (Ih.,  52.) 
little  author,  not  near  so  Iji^'  as  the  "  In  profane  authors  (as  they  are 
whole  New  Testament;  and  am  called)  whereof  one  manuscript 
morally  sure  that,  if  half  the  num-  only  had  the  luck  to  be  pre- 
ber  of  manuscripts  were  collated  served,  as  Velleius  I'aterculus 
for  Terence  with  that  niceness  of  amon«.'  the  Latins  and  llesychius 
minuteness  which  has  been  used  among  the  (ireeks,  the  faults  of  the 
in  twice  as  many  for  the  New  Tes-  scribes  are  found  so  numerous,  and 
lament,  the  number  of  variations  the  defects  so  beyond  all  redress, 
would  amount  to  above  fifty  thou-  that,  notwithstanding  the  jiains  of 
sand."  (From  Phihlntlirrm  T/ipn'i-  the  learnedest  and  acutest  critics 
enxia,  f]uoted  Ijy  Tregelles,  UiM.  of  for  two  whole  centuries,  these 
Printed  TpxI,  51.)  bf)oks  still  arc,  and  are  like  to  con- 
^  "  In  the  late  c.lition  of  Tibul-  tinue,  a  mere  heap  of  errors."  {lb., 
us,    by    the    learned    writer    Mr.  51.) 


and  by  Jew- 
ish 


N'KW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  H 

wholesome  dread  of"  it  wlicn  j)ul)lisliiii<:;^  their  books.  Thus, 
Irenajus  of  the  second  eenturv  appended  t(»  one  of  his  books 
an  earnest  entreaty  in  the  name  of  the  Ijord,  that  his  transcri- 
ber shall  correct  his  copy  by  the  original,  and  transmit  this 
entreaty  to  subsequent  copyists  ;  and  this  entreaty  is  quoted 
by  Eusebius  of  the  fourth  century,  andadt>pted  with  reference 
to  his  own  books. ^  The  Jewish  copvists  of  the  Old  Testa-* 
ment  were  aware  of  the  same  danger,  and,  as  stated  in  the  Talmud 
published  about  A.  D.  350,  they  adopted  for  themselves 
very  minute  regulations  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  sacred  j 
text.  They  numbered  the  verses,  words  and  letters  of  the 
Scriptures,  by  books  and  sections,  marking  the  middle  verse 
and  letter  of  each,  so  that  by  counting  these  in  any  copy  they 
could  determine  whether  a  word  or  a  letter  had  been  added  or 
omitted.'     We  have  no  account  of  the  rules  adopted  by  copv- '^.'"^  ^'*'^'^' 

*  ^        I  "     tiaii 

ists  of  the  New  Testament,  but  we  know  that  they  had  every  copyists, 
inducement  to  copy  with  care.  The  author  of  the  Book  of 
Revelation  had  given  the  warning,  that  to  anyone  who  should 
add  a  word  to  his  book  God  would  add  the  plagues  written  in 
it,  and  that  if  any  one  should  take  away  a  word  God  would 
take  his  name  out  of  the  book  of  life  ;  and  that  this  solemn 
warning  was  accepted  by  Christians  at  an  early  date  as  a2)ply- 
ing  to  other  books  as  well  as  to  this,  is  known  l)y  the  fact  that 
Iremcus  thus  applied  it  to  some  who  were  charged  with  alter- 
ing the  text,  though  he  expresses  the  opinion  that  those  who 
do  so  without  evil  intent  may  receive  pardon.^     But  notwith- 

'  "  Irenjeus  also  wrote  the  troa-  manuscript  from  which  thou  lia-t 

tise  on  the  Ogiload,  or  the  number  carefully  transcribed,  and  that  thou 

eight.     .     .     .     At  the  close  of  tbe  also  copy  this  adjuration  and  insert 

work  we  found  a  most  delightful  it  in  the  copy.' "  (Eusebius,  £cc/''«. 

remark  of  his,  which  we  shall  deem  //i.s^,  r.  20.) 

incumbent  upon  us  also  to  add  to  *  Davidson,  liihlical  Criticism,    I. 

the  present  work.     It  is  as  follows  :  116. 

'  I  adjure  thee,  whoever  thou  art  ''  He   is    speaking    of    a    change 

that  transcribest  this  1)ook,  by  our  which    had    been    made    in   some 

Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  Ity  His  glo-  copies,  by  which  (il(i  was  found  in 

rious   ap|)earance   when    Tie   shall  Rev.   xiii.   IS,  instea<l  <if  (>♦>(>;    and 

come  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead,  he  says  of  those  who  liad  made  the 

to  compare  what  thou  hast  copied,  change  or  had  received  it :    "  Now, 

and  to  correct  it  by  this  original  as  regards  those  who   have   done 


10  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

but  found   standing  the   viarilance  of  Jewish  copyists,  and    the    solemn 

in  the  sa-  •  i  i  i  /->      •     •  . 

credtext.    warnings  addressed  to   Cliristian  copyists,  a  large  number  of 

erroneous  readings  found  their  way  into  the  manuscript  copies 

of  both  Testaments,  and  the  existence  of  these  gave  rise  to  the 

science  of  Biblical  Criticism. 

How  errors         3     Jt  ^vaJS  known,   from   a  very  early  i)eriod  of  Christian 

of  copyists     .  .     ■ 

came  to      literature,  that  errors  of  transcribers  had  crept  into  the  sacred 

light,  writings,^   but  it  was  not  until  after   printed  copies  had  come 

into  circulation,  and  the  copies  issued  by  different  publishers 
had  been  compared,  that  scholars  began  to  realize  the  magni- 
tude of  the  evil  and  to  search  for  the  means  of  correctinef  it. 
Printing  from  movable  types  was  invented  in  1438,  and  the 
first  book  printed  was  the  Latin  Bible  about  1452.^  In  the 
last  quarter  of  the  same  century  several  editions  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  were  printed  by  wealthy  Jews  in  Italy,^  but  it 
was  not  until  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  the 
Greek  New  Testament  was  given  to  the  world  in  this  form. 
It  was  first  printed  at  Complutum'(Alcala)  in  Spain,  under  the 
direction  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  in  the  year  1514  ;  but  on  ac- 
count of  delay  in  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  Pope,  this  cdi- 

tliis  in  simplicity,  and  without  evil  great  in  truth  has  become  tlie  di- 

intent,  we  are  at  lilierty  to  assume  versity  of  copies,  be   it   from    the 

that  pardon  will  be  granted  them  negligence  of  scriVjes,  or  from  the 

by  Goil.     But  as  for  those  who,  for  evil   daring   of  some  who   correct 

the  sake  of  vainglory,  lay  it  down  what  is  written,  or  from  those  wko 

for  certain  that  names  containing  in    correcting  add    or  take  away 

the  spurious  number  are  to  be  ac-  what  thej'   think   lit."      {Com.   on 

cepted,  and  affirm  that  this  name,  Mdttht'w,  quoted  in  Scrivener's  Int., 

hit  upon  by  themselves,  is  that  of  Mi).) 

him  who  is  to  come;  such  persons  '^  It  was  publislied  at  Alentz  by 

shall  not  come  forth  without  loss,  Gutenl)crg  (the  inventor  of  print- 

because  they  have  led  into  error  ing)     and    Faust ;     and    Scrivener 

both    themselves   and    those   who  states  that  eighteen  copies  of  the 

have  confided  in  them.    .    .    .    As  edition     are    still    preserved,    "  a 

there  shall  be  no  light  punishment  splendid    and    beautiful    volume." 

upon  him  who  either  aJlds  to  or  (Int.,  3ol.)     One  of  these  was  solil 

subtracts  anything  from  the  Scrip-  at  auction   in    London,   in   March, 

ture,    under    that    such    a   person  I880,    for   the   enormous    price;   of 

must    neces.sarily    fall."     {AgaiiiKt  $19,500. 

Hrrrsirs^  B.  V.,  c.  xxx.,  ?  1.)  ''  For  an   iiccmint  of    these,  sec 

'  Origen,  at  the  l)eginnine  of  the  Davidson's  Bih.  Crit.,  I.,  1.37-141; 

third    century,    says:    "But  now  Tregelles, //is^.  0/ Prm^^r/  T^r/,  1,  2. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  11 

tion  was  not  published  until  1522.  In  the  meantime  an  edi- 
tion was  prepared  by  Erasmus  and  published  at  Basle  in  Switz- 
erland, in  lolG.  After  this,  editions  and  copies  were  multi- 
plied rapidly;  tiie  Protestant  Reformation,  which  began  about 
the  same  time,  stimulated  the;  work,  and  the  attention  of 
scholars  was  drawn  more  and  more  to  the  diiferences  among 
tilt!  printed  editions,  and  between  them  and  the  manuscripts, 
until  Biblical  Criticism,  to  which  printing  gave  birth,  grew  to 
its  i)resent  maturity.      As  a   result  of  these  investigations,  thc'*"'^ '^®^'' 

*  1  •  ^'  Tiv  c  number 

number  of  various  readings,  that  is,  readings  diiierent  from 
those  in  the  text  commonly  used,  which  are  to  be  found  in 
the  hundreds  of  existing  manuscripts,  is  now  estimated  at  not 
less  than  120,000.^ 

4.    But  while  the  art  of  i)rinting  brought  into  clearer  light.^'"V'-^"' 

i  _    "  °       ,         _  °       the  field  of 

the  various  readings  of  manuscripts,  and  gave  rise  to  the  in- inquiry, 
quiries  of  Biblical  critics,  it  also  brouglit  the  multiplication  of 
various  readings  to  an  end,  and  fixed  a  limit  to  the  field  in 
which  these  inquiries  are  to  be  prosecuted.  Such  is  the  per- 
fection to  which  the  art  of  printing  has  attained,  that  when  the 
types  for  a  book  are  once  set,  and  stereotyped  plates  are  made 
from  tiiem,  all  the  copies  printed  therefrom,  however  numer- 
ous, are  alike  in  every  word  and  letter  ;  consequently,  the  mere 
multiplication  of  copies,  which  is  the  chief  source  of  error  in 
manuscripts,  originates  no  errors  in  j)rinted  copies.  It  is  also 
practicable,  by  means  of  proof-nading,  which  is  a  part  of  the 
art  of  printing,  to  secure  perfect  accuracy  in  the  types  or  plates 
from  which  the  printing  is  done,  and  to  perpetuate  this  accuracy 
in  making  duplicates  of  the  plates.  It  is  claimed,  fi)r  instance, 
by  the  Anicriean  BibU;  Society,  that  there  is  not  a  single  mis- 
print in  any  of  the  myriads  of  coj)ies  of  the  English  Bible 
which  they  are  annually  printing  in  various  editions.  It  fol- 
lows, that  since  the  art  of  printing  has  been  perfected,  the 
multiplication  of  various  readings  in  the  original  Scriptures 
has  cea.sed,  an<l  that  when  the  errors  which  (•rej)t  in  bi'fi)re  the 
invention  of  printing  shall  have  been  (lorrected,  the  Bible  will 
be  no    longer  exposed   to   such   errors,  the  Science  of  Biblical 

'  This    is     Scrivener's     estiinato    higher  by  some  other  authors. 
(Int.   3).    Tho  number    is    pUiced 


12  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

Criticism  will  have  completed  its  task,  and  the  subsequent 
generations  of  men  will  have  no  care  concerning  the  purity  of 
the  sacred  text.  Our  inquiry  into  the  integrity  of  the  New 
Testament  is  therefore  limited  to  the  period  which  preceded 
the  invention  of  printing,  or  to  the  first  fifteen  centuries  of 
our  era. 


CHAPTER    II. 


CHARACTER  OF   THP:    VARIOUS    READINGS. 


1.  A  bare  statement  of  the  lumihor  of  various  readings  In  Their  num- 
the  sacred  text  is  calculated  to  excite  surprise  and  alarm;  but  cause  for 
when  the  character  of  these  variations  is  considered  these  feel-*'*""™- 
ings  ([uickly  subside.     Dr.  Hort,  one  of  the  most  competent  of 
living  authorities  on  the  subject,  declares,  that  in  regard  to  the 
great  bulk  of  the  words  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no 
variation,  and  no  other  ground  of  doubt.     He  estimates  the 
number  of  words  admitted  on  all   hands  to  be  above  doubt,  at 
not  less  than  seven-eighths  of  the  whole.     When,  of  the  remain-  ^^^"|'^* 

°  '  number  of 

ing  onr-eighth,  we  leave  out  mere  differences  of  spelling,  the  material 
number  still  left  in  doubt  is  about  one-sixtieth  of  the  whole  ;'^'"^"'^^^' 
and  when  we  select  from  this  one-sixtieth  of  those  which  in 
any  sense  can  be  called  substantial  variations,  their  number 
he  says,  can  hardly  form  more  than  a  thousandth  j)art  of  the 
entire  text.  That  is,  only  about  one  thousandth  part  of  the 
New  Testament  is  so  variously  expressed  in  the  various  copies, 
as  to  make  any  substantial  difference  of  meaning.^ 

'"With  regard    to  tlie   bulk    of  printed   text.     The   proportion   of 

the  words  of  the  New  Testament,  words    virtually   accepted    on    all 

as  of  most  other  ancient  writing's,  hands  as  raised  above  doubt  is  very 

there    is    no    variation,    or    other  great,  not  less,  on  a  rough  rompu- 

ground  of  doubt,  and  therefore  no  tation,  than   .sevt'neighths  of   the 

room   for  textual    criticism  ;    and  wliole.       The     remaining    eighth, 

here,  therefore,  an  editor  is  only  a  therefore,  formed  in  great  part  by 

transcriber.    The  same  may  be  said  changes  of  order  and  other  trivial- 

in  truth  with  respect   to  those  va-  ities,  constitutes  the  whole  area  of 

rious  readings  which    have   never  criticism.                 .      Setting  aside 

been  received,  and  in  all  probabil-  diirercnces     in     orthography,    the 

ity  never  will  be  received,  into  anv  words  in  our  opinion  still  subject 

(13) 


14  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

lu  what  the        2.  The  varioiis  readine-s  consist  mainly  in  diifer^nces  of 

variations      -,        ,  ,  i  . 

consist.  Greek  orthography;  in  tlie  form  of  words  not  affecting  the 
essential  meaning;  in  the  insertion  or  omission  of  words  not 
essential  to  the  sense;  in  the  nse  of  one  synonym  for  another; 
and  in  the  transposition  of  words  whose  order  in  the  sentence 
is  immaterial.  It  is  obvious  that  such  variations,  however 
numerous,  leave  the  text  uncorrupted  as  regards  its  thoughts. 
An  essay  might  be  written  in  English  with  almost  everv  word 
misspelt  and  every  sentence  ungrammatical,  which  would  still 
express  its  meaning  as  clearly  as  the  most  accurate  and  elegant 
composition.  The  writings  of  "  Josh  Billings  "  are  as  clear  as 
those  of  Addison.  It  is  only  then,  in  the  one-thousandth  part 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  the  part  in  which  the  variations 
affect  the  meaning,  that  the  text  has  undergone  corruption 
worthy  of  any  serious  inquiry. 

A  specimen        3  'rj.^^  illustrate  still  furtlier  the  nature  of  these  variations, 

passage.  ' 

we  open  the  Critical  New  Testament  published  by  Tregelles, 
at  the  second  cha})ter  of  Matthew.  He  has  collected  the  various 
readings,  not  from  all  the  ancient  authorities,  but  only  from  those 
of  the  more  ancient  class ;  yet  in  the  first  seven  verses  of  this 
chapter  his  notes  exhibit  twenty-five  various  readings.  So  in- 
significant are  they,  however,  that  only  four  of  the  twenty-five 
can  be  represented  at  all  in  an  English  translation.  One  of 
the  four  is  a  case  of  transposition,  and  the  other  three  of  the 
omission  or  in.sertion  of  words  not  essential  to  the  meaning. 
They  are  as  follows: 

V.  '.'>.  "The  king  ilorod."  "  Ik'rod  tlie  king." 

V.  ?>    "Jerusalem  with  him."  "All  Jerusalem  with  him." 

V.  4.       "All     the     prie.st8     and        "All     the     chief     priests     and 

scribes."  scribes." 

V.4.  "  Inquired  from  them  where        "  Incinireil  where,"  etc. 

the  Christ  should  lie  born." 

to  doubt  only  make  up  about  one-  sub.stantial  variation  is  but  a  .small 

sixtieth  of  the  New  TesUiment.    In  fraction    of    (lie    whole    residuary 

thisBccond  estimate,  the  yiroportion  variation,   and    can    hardly    form 

of  comparatively  trivial  variations  more  than  a  thousandth  part  of  the 

is  beyond  measure  larger  than   in  entire  text."     (hilrodnctiou  to  fireek 

the  former,  so  that  the  amount  of  New  Testament,  Westcott  and  Ilort, 

wliat  can   in  any  sense  be  called  2.) 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  15 

Should  WO  .submit  to  liko  cxaniiiiation  tlic  entire  w<jrk  of 
Tregt'llcs,  or  auy  similar  work,  we  would  find  the  changes 
throughout  of  the  .same  character,  with  the  exceptiou  of  about 
the  one-thou.smdth  part  mentioned  by  Dr.  Ilort. 

4.  Some  of  the  changes  which  affect  the  meaniny;  of  par-^"™''^™' 

•       ,  I        •  1       •  -1  •    ■       II  nmterialln- 

ticular  pai^sages  by  mtroducing  iaea.s  not  originally  expre.s.sed (.rpoia- 
in  them,  are  nevertheless  immaterial  a.s  regards  the  general  "°"^' 
teachings  of  the  scriptures,  becau.se  the  idea.s  introduced  are 
found  in  other  pas.^^ages.  For  example,  in  Luke's  account  of 
the  conversion  of  Paul,  the  words,  "It  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick 
against  the  goad.'^,"  and  the  words,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have 
me  to  do?"  are  interpolated  in  many  cojjie.s,  and  they  give  ex- 
pression to  ideas  not  ])enned  l)y  Luke  in  this  place;  but  .still 
these  words  ^\ere  .spoken  on  the  occasion,  as  we  learn  from 
Paul's  accounts  of  the  same  incident  in  his  speeches  reported 
in  other  chapters  of  Acts.'  Again,  the  entire  thirty-.seventh 
verse  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts,  as  found  in  some  MSS.,  Ls 
an  interpolation,  adding  to  the  original  the  .statement,  that 
Philip  .said  to  the  eunuch  "If  thou  believe.st  with  all  thv  heart 
thou  mayest,"  and  the  eunuch's  respon.se,"  I  believe  that  Jesus 
dirist  is  the  Son  of  God;"  yet  the  fact  that  such  a  confession 
of  faith  was  recpiired  of  converts  as  a  preretpiisite  to  baj)tism  is 
taught  in  other  passages,^  and  this  interpolation  is  not  mis- 
leading. Another  example  of  the  .same  cla.ss  is  the  well-known 
j)a.s.-.age  in  I.  John  v.  7,  8,  where  the  statement  about  the  three 
witnes.ses  in  heaven  is  interpolated,  yet  it  states  what  is  known 
by  many  other  pa.s.sages  to  be  true. 

5.  But  besides  tiie  changes  which  are  not  material  to  thech.-jnge.sof 
general  t<'aching  of  .scrii>ture,  there  arc  a  few  that  are  so,  and  "^ '"?'!'^ f"'" 

'-'  o  i  '  7  ous  kind, 

there  ai'e  two  pa.s.sages  of  considei'able  length,  the  genuineness an'i  long 
of  which   has  been  brought   into  doui)t   by  the  investigations  {'"^^"^^^^^ 
<if  critics.     Of  the   former  cla.ss  we    mentii»n   the  statement  of'ioubfed. 
Jojm  V.  4,  that  an  angel  went  down  into  the  pool  and  troubled 
the  water,  and   that   the  first  })er.s()n  who  ste[)pi'd   in  afterward 
was  healed  of  what<'ver  di.sea.se  he  iuid.'^     The   two  long  piLs.s- 

'  Acts  ix.  5,0;  comi).  Acts  xxii.      ^Tlie  evidence  for  and  against  the 
7-10;  xxvi.  14,  15.  K'^'niiinene.ssof  this  pas.sapc  is  fully* 

''  Honi.  x.  0,  10;  Mark  xvi.  1(1.         i;iven  in  Scrivener'.s  Intro,,  (M)7. 


16 


INTEGRITY  OF  THE 


Matters  of 

doctrine, 

duty  and 

privilege 

unaffected 

by  the 

changes. 


ages  brought  into  doubt  are  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark, 
and  the  aeeouut  in  John's  Gospel  of"  the  woman  taken  in  adul- 
tery. The  genuineness  of  these  is  doubted  by  some  critics, 
though  eoiifidently  defended,  especially  the  former,  by  others.' 
Further  investigation  will  doubtless  bring  all  to  the  same 
judgment  concerning  them. 

0.  While  it  is  evident  from  the  preceding  statements  that 
some  interpolations  are  found  in  the  MSS.  and  printed  editions 
of  the  New  Testament,  it  has  yet  been  ascertained  by  a  careful 
examination  of  all  these,  that  they  contain  nothing  contradic- 
tt)ry  of  the  parts  which  are  genuine,  and  nothing  subversive  of 
liiith  or  duty.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Davidson,  "No  new 
doctrines  have  been  elicited  by  the  aid  of  Biblical  criticism, 


'  The  genuineness  of   INIark  xvi. 
9-20  is    most    ably    discussed    by 
Westcott  and   Hort  on  one  side, 
and  Scrivener  on  the  other.    The 
conclusion  reached  by  the  former, 
after  an  elaborate  dissertation,  is 
stated  in  these  words:  "There  is 
no  difficulty  in  supposing  (1)  that 
the  true  intended  continuation  of 
verses  1-8  either  was  very  early  lost 
by  the  detachment  of  a  leaf,  or  was 
never  written  down;  and  (2)  that 
a   scribe    or  editor,   unwilling    to 
change  the  words  of  the  text  be- 
fore him,  or  to  add  words  of   his 
own,    was   willing   to   furnish   the 
Gospel  with  what  seemed  a  worthy 
conclusion  by  incorporating  with  it 
unchanged  a  narrative  of  Christ's 
appearances  after  the  resurrection, 
which-  he  found  in  some  secondary 
record    then    surviving    from    tlie 
preceding  generation.  If  these  sup- 
positions are  mad«>,  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  evidence  becomes  clear  and 
harmonious.     Every  other  view  is, 
we  believe,  untenable.     ...     It 
[the   pa.ssage]    manifestly  can   not 
claim  any  apostolic  authoritv  ;  but 
it   is   doubtless  founded   on  some 


tradition  of  the  apostolic  age." 
{Introduction  to  New  Testament,  Ap- 
pendix I.,  p.  51.) 

In  opposition  to  these  conclu- 
sions. Scrivener  speaks  with  equal 
confidence.  He  says  in  regard  to 
both  of  the  passages  mentioned 
above :  "  AVe  shall  hereafter  defend 
these  passages,  tlie  first  without 
the  slightest  misgiving,  the  second 
with  certain  reservations,  as  enti- 
tled to  be  regarded  as  authentic 
portions  of  the  Gospels  in  which 
they  stand."  He  redeems  this 
pledge  by  furnishing  an  elaborate 
answer  to  all  the  arguments  made 
by  Dr.  Hort.  {Scrivener's  Introduc- 
tion, 583-590).  The  positions  taken 
by  other  able  critics  are  given  in  the 
same  note. 

In  regard  to  John  vii.  53-viii.  11, 
opinions  of  critics  are  not  so  con- 
flicting. All  agree  tliat  it  can  not 
have  been  a  part  of  John  soriginal 
MS.,  Init  it  is  held  ])y  some  of  the 
ablest  that  it  is  nevertheless  an 
authentic  piece  of  history,  and  that 
it  was  probably  inserted  by  John 
in  a  second  edition  of  his  Gospel. 
(Scrivener,  JUO.) 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  17 

nor  have  any  historical  latts  been  .summoned  by  it  from  (th- 
scurity.  All  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity  remain 
unaffected;"^  and  in  the  still  more  specific  language  of  Dr. 
Hort,  "  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  as  preserved  in  ex- 
tant documents  assuredly  speak  to  us  in  every  important  re- 
spect in  language  identical  with  that  in  which  they  spoke  to 
those  for  whom  they  were  originally  written."-  If  these 
statements  are  true,  a.s  they  undoubtedly  are,  then  all  the 
authority  and  value  possessed  by  these  books  when  they  were 
first  written  belong  to  them  still.  The  ca^je  is' like  that  of  a 
certain  will.  A  gentleman  lefl  a  large  estate  entailed  to  his  i""'^ira»ion 
descendants  of  the  third  generation,  and  it  was  not  to  be  divided 
until  a  majority  of  them  should  be  of  age.  During  the  interval 
many  copies  of  the  will  were  circulated  among  parties  inter- 
ested, many  of  these  being  copies  of  copies.  In  the  meantime 
the  office  of  record  in  which  the  original  was  filed  was  burned 
with  all  its.  contents.  When  the  time  for  division  drew  near, 
a  prying  attorney  gave  out  among  the  heirs  the  report  that  no 
two  existing  copies  of  the  will  were  alike.  This  alarmed  them 
all  and  set  them  busily  at  work  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  the 
report.  On  comparing  copy  with  copy  they  found  the  report 
true,  but  on  close  inspection  it  was  discovered  that  the  differ- 
ences consisted  in  errors  of  spelling  or  grammatical  construc- 
tion ;  some  mistakes  in  figures  corrected  by  the  written  num- 
bers; and  some  other  differences  not  easily  accounted  for;  but 
that  in  none  of  the  copies  did  these  mistakes  affect  the  rights 
of  the  heirs.  In  the  essential  matters  for  which  the  ^vill  was 
written  the  representations  of  all  the  copies  were  precisely  the 
same.  The  result  was  that  they  divided  the  estate  with  perfect 
satisfaction  to  all,  and  they  were  more  certain  that  they  had 
executed  the  will  of  their  grandfather  than  if  the  original  copy 
had  been  alone  j)n'served ;  for  it  might  have  Ijccu  tamju'red 
with  in  the  interest  of  a  single  heir,  but  the  coj)ies,  defective 
though  they  were,  could  not  have  be(>ii.  So  with  the  New 
Testament.     The    discovery    .tf  errors    in    the   copies   excited 

'   Bihliod  Critici.vii,  ii.  147.  ^  Iiilnnluctimi  to  Greek  New  Teata- 

ineni,  284. 


18  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

alarm  leading  to  inquiry,  M-hich  developed  the  fact  that  ho  who 
has  the  most  imperfect  copy  has  in  it  all  that  the  original  con. 
ta,ined  of  dt)ctrine,  duty  and  privilege. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  VARIOUS  READINGS. 


The  student  can  scarcely  realize  how  the  number  of  various  vaiue  of 


this  in- 
quiry. 


readings  can  be  so  great  and  yet  the  number  of  serious  differ- 
ences so  small  as  we  have  represented  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters, until  he  becomes  acquainted  in  detail  with  the  sources 
whence  the  various  readings  have  arisen. 

Much  the  greater  part  of  the  variants,  as  the  reader  must  Variations 
already  have  perceived,  is  the  result  of  accident;  but  there  are  (.'appjl^je'^t. 
some  which  must  be  regarded  as  intentional  alterations.     They  '^^  ^^^  '"■ 
are  therefore  divided  into  the  two  general  classes  of  accidental 
and  intentional  alterations ;  and  in  seeking  to  trace  them  to 
(heir  more  especial  sources  we  will  consider  these  two  classes 
separately. 

The  sources  of  the  accidental  alterations  may  be  classified  Accidental 
as  follows:  '  """"S^'"- 

1.  Momentary  Inattention.     Every  person  who  has  had  ex- From  inat- 
pi-'rieuce  in  copying  knows  that  it  is  difficult  to  keej)  theatten-'*'"^'""' 
tion  closely  fixed  on  the  task  Inr  a  protracted  period,  and  that 

if  it  is  diverted  even  for  a  moment,  mistakes  are  almost  cer- 
tain to  occur.  This  is  a  prolific  source  of  such  mistidies  as 
the  omission  of  letters  and  worda,  the  repetition  of  the  same, 
the  substitution  of  words  for  others  composed  chiefly  of  the 
same  letters,  the  substitution  of  letters  for  others  of  similar 
form,  and  the  traus|)osition  of  words. 

2.  Divemion  of  attcnfion  from  the  words  to  the  siihjeci  matter.  ^'^'^^^  '^^''^'^'^■ 
An  intelligent  copyist  must  unavoidably  follow  the  train  offttte,,'t,onT 
thought  in  that  which  he  eopics,  mid  the  momcnl    (hat    he  l)o- 

coraes  more  absorbed  in  this  than  in  the  exact  words  cniploved, 

(11')' 


20  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

he  is  exposed  to  such  mistakes  as  the  omission  of  particles  not 
necessary  to  the  sense,  the  substitution  of  one  synonym  for  an- 
other, and  the  addition  or  omission  of  pronouns,  and  the  inser- 
tion of  nouns  where  their  pronouns  were  understood. 

from  dicta-  3^  Writing  from  dictation.  The  task  of  the  copyist  was  a 
very  tedious  one,  and  he  naturally  resorted  to  every  available 
means  of  hastening  his  progress.  One  of  these  was  to  employ 
an  assistant  who  would  read  a  few  words  at  a  time  while  he 
copied.  In  this  case  he  had  only  the  sound  of  the  words  to 
guide  iiim,  and  lie  was  exposed  to  errors  through  his  reader's 
fault  as  well  as  his  own.  If  the  reader  mispronounced  a  word, 
or  pronounced  it  indistinctly,  it  was  likely  to  be  misspelt  or 
mistaken  for  another.  If  he  omitted  or  repeated  a  word,  it 
was  on)itted  or  repeated  by  the  copyist.^ 

from  ho-  4,  Homoioteleuton.     For  want  of  a  suitable  English  word 

ton;  critics  have  adopted  this  Greek  word  for  another  source  of 

clerical  errors,  the  similar  ending  of  clauses,  sentences  and 
lines.  The  copyist,  when  he  finishes  a  certain  clause,  or  sen- 
tence, or  line,  bears  in  his  mind  as  he  turns  his  eye  back  to 
the  manuscript  before  him,  the  ending  of  what  he  has  just 
written,  and  seeing  a  similar  ending  close  by  he  starts  from  it, 
omitting  some  words,  a  whole  clause,  the  whole  of  a  short  sen- 
tence, or  possibly  tiie  whole  of  a  line. 

from  mis-  5.   Change  of  pronunciation.     Words  in  a  living  language 

pronuncia-  .  , 

tion;  undergo  many  changes  of    pronunciation;   and   wlien   a  dead 

language  is  employed  by  scholars  of  different  tongues  it  is  sub- 
jected to  as  many  different  modes  of  pronunciation  as  the 
tongues  employed;  and   in  all  these  cases  there  is  a  constant 

'  Dr.  Scrivener  remarks  in  regard  trust  himself  to  tliis  motliod  wlio 
to  this  source  of  error:  "One  is  did  not  regard  himself  as  very  pro- 
not  very  willing  to  believe  that  ficient  in  Greek  orthography ;  yet, 
manuscripts  of  the  better  class  while  all  this  is  true  of  manuscripts 
were  executed  on  so  slovenly  and  of  the  "  better  class,"  it  may  not  be 
careless  a  i)lan; "  and  he  thinks  true  of  those  of  inferior  classes, 
that  "the  confusion  of  certain  and  a  supposition  so  natural  in  it- 
vowels  and  dii)ht)hongs  having  self,  and  adopted  l)y  all  other  crit- 
nearly  the  same  sound  "  can  be  ac-  ics,  can  not  be  set  aside  entirely 
counted  for  on  other  suppositions,  by  the  counter- supposition  of  a 
Doubtless  he  is  correct ;  and  it  single  critic.  See  Scriv.  Int.,  10. 
may  be  added,  that  no  scribe  won  Id 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  21 

tendency  toward  the  misspelling  of  words  to  suit  the  changed 
pronunciation. 

6.  Trusting    to   memory.     The  copyist    necessarily   carries  f"""™ '"^s^- 
words  in  his  moniory  from  the  moment  tiiat  his  eye  turns  away  memory; 
from  the  text  before  him  until   the  last  word  of  the  number 

thus  carried  is  written.  The  greater  the  number  of  words  thus 
carried  at  once  the  more  rapid  his  progress  and  the  less  weari- 
some his  task.  He  is  therefore  tempted  to  trust  too  much  to 
memory.  The  same  is  true  in  writing  from  dictation.  From 
this  cause  must  have  sprung  a  large  number  of  errors  of  nearly 
all  the  kinds  mentioned  above. 

7.  Absence  of  spaces  and  punctuation.     Early  manuscripts '"^o™"^ 

•  .,  •  ,•  »»  .      1    ,  .   ,  senceof 

were  written  m  continuous  rows  of  capital  letters,  without  spaces  and 
spaces  between  the  words  and  sentences.  The  earliest  example  P^^^ctua- 
of  separated  words  is  found  in  a  manuscript  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, and  it  was  not  until  about  this  period  that  the  punctua- 
tion marks  now  employed  came  into  use,  the  earliest  existing 
Greek  manuscripts  having  no  stops  at  all,  and  the  oldest  exist- 
ing manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament  having  only  a  single 
point  here  and  there  at  the  top  of  the  letters  to  denote  a  pause 
in  the  sense.*  That  such  a  mode  of  writing  must  have  been  a 
prolific -source  of  mistakes  in  copying,  and  must  have  aggra- 
vated the  effects  of  the  other  causes  mentioned  above,  is  ob- 
vious. The  English  scholar  will  have  a  more  lively  apprecia- 
tion of  it  if  he  will  imagine  himself  copying  a  book  printed  as 
follows : 

HOWBEITTHATWASNOTFIRSTWHICHISSPIRITUALBT^TTH 
ATWHICHISNATURALANDAFTERWARDTHATWHICHISSPIRI 
TUALTHEFIRSTMANLSOFTHEEARTHEARTHYTHESECONDMA 

NISTHELORDFROMHEAVENASISTHEEARTHYSUCHAREALSO 
THEYTHATAREEARTHY 

The  sources  of  intentional  alterations  are   not  numerous,  sources  of 
and  the   number  of  such  alterations  is  comparatively  small! ISion'' 
All  these  sources  are  to  be  found  in  the  various  purposes  for 
which  thf  alterations  were  made,  and  all    may  be   included  in 
the  following: 

1.   To  correct  a  supposed  mistake.     Every  copyist,  kuowintr'^''*'''"^' 

^  -^  ^  misUkea  in 

'  Scrivener's  Int.,  46,  47. 


22  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

grammar,  that  preceding  copyists  were  liable  to  mistakes,  was  tempted  to 
correct  such  mistakes  when  he  discovered  them,  or  when 
he  thought  he  discovered  them.  These  supposed  mistakes 
were  of  two  kinds:  first,  errors  in  grammatical  construction ; 
and  second,  errors  of  omission,  addition,  or  substitution. 
When  a  sentence  appeared  to  the  scribe  ungrammatical,  or 
even  inelegant,  he  sometimes  corrected  it  without  altering  the 
sense.  Sometimes,  also,  MSS.  were  thus  corrected  by  inter- 
lineation, and  copies  of  these  MSS.  perpetuated  and  mul- 
or  accident- tiplied  these  corrections.^  Errors  of  the  other  kind  originated 
sions.  chiefly  from  confounding  marginal  notes  with  marginal  correc- 
tions. It  was  quite  common  for  owners  of  MSS.  to  write 
notes  and  comments  on  the  margin,  or  between  the  lines ;  and 
it  was  also  common  for  copyists  when  they  had  accidentally 
omitted  a  word  or  a  number  of  words,  to  insert  these  in  the 
same  way.  Now  and  then,  a  subsequent  copyist  would  mis- 
take one  of  these  marginal  notes  for  a  marginal  correction, 
and  purposely  put  it  into  the  body  of  his  text.  It  is  supposed, 
for  exam})le,  that  the  portion  of  I.  John  v.  7  relating  to  the 
Heavenly  Witnesses,  the  whole  of  Acts  viii.  37,  the  doxology 
to  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  John  v.  4,  as  represented  in  King 
James'  version,  were  interpolated  in  this  way.  • 

Togivefuii-  2.  To  secure  fullness  of  expression.  In  many  instances  the 
expression,  scribcs  have  coj)ied  into  a  })assage  in  one  of  the  Gospels  words 
which  belong  to  the  parallel  place  in  another,  but  which  ap- 
peared to  liim  necessary  to  fill  out  the  sense.  Thus,  in  the 
sentence,  "  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  re- 
pentance," the  words  "to  repentance"  are  copied  into  Matt, 
ix.  13  and  Mark  ii.  17,  from  Luke  v.  32  where  they  are  genuine. 
Again,the  prophetic  citation  in  Matthew  xxvii.35is  interpolated 
from  John  xix.  24.^  In  other  instances,  separate  narrntives  of 
the  same  event,  written  in  the  .same  book,  are  made  to  supple- 

'  The  student  wlio  understands  thus  fill  up  one  narrative  from  an- 

Greek  syntax  may  find  a  number  other  nm.st  have  been  a-rnravafcd 

of  examples  of  this  class  of  cor-  by  the  laudable  elTort  of  Biblical 

rections  in   Scrivener's    Introduc-  scholars  (beginning  with  Tatian's 

tion,  13  (12).  Diatesseron  in  the8e(;ond  century) 

^  Scrivener  makes  the  very  apj)©-  to  construct  a  satisfactory  liarmony 

site  remark,  that  the  tendency  to  of  them  all.     Int  ,  12  (0). 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  23 

ment  one  another.  In  the  account  of  Paul's  conversion  given 
in  Acts  ix.  8-(J,  the  words,  "  it  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  -against 
the  goad,"  were  taken  from  xxvi.  14;  and  tiie  words,  "Lord, 
what  wilt  thou  have  nie  to  do,"  from  xxii.  10.  In  other  in- 
stances, tlie  transcribers,  in  copying  qudtations  made  from  tlie 
Old  Testament  by  New  Testament  writers,  liave  extended  the 
quotations.  The  words,  "  dmwctli  nigh  (o  me  with  their 
mouth"  (Matt.  xv.  8);  "  to  heal  the  broken  hearted  "  (Luke 
iv.  18);  "  him  shall  ye  hear  "(Acts  vii.  37),  are  examples.  In 
these  instances  the  added  words  are  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  New  Testament  Avriters  had  seen  fit  to  omit  them, 
but  the  transcribers  took  tlie  liberty  to  insert  them, 

3.  To  support  a  doctrine.  There  is  only  a  very  small  num-  tosupporta 
ber  (»f  variations  which  can  be  suspected  of  a  doctrinal  origin; 
and  fortunately  none  of  these  affects  materially  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scripture  as  a  whole  on  the  subject  involved.  Yet  the 
difference  l)etwoen  manuscripts  in  regard  to  the  following 
readings  can  scircely  be  accounted  for  on  any  other  hypothe- 
sis. In  Matt.  xix.l7,some  MSS.  read  : ''  Why  callst  thou  me 
good?  There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God."  Others, 
"  "Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is  good  ?  One 
there  is  who  is  good,"  In  John  i.  18,  some  read  "the  only 
begotten  son;"  others,  "the  only  begotten  God."  In  Acts 
XX.  28  some  read  "the  cliiireh  of  God  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood  ;  "  others,  "  the  Church  of  the 
Lord,"  etc.  It  is  highly  probable  that,  no  matter  which  of 
the  readings  in  each  of  these  instances  is  the  original,  intem- 
perate zeal  on  the  question  of  the  Trinity  led  to  the  insertion 
of  the  other  in  the  copies  which  have  it.  It  is  possible  that 
in  some  of  them  the  scribe  regarded  the  objectionable  reading 
as  a  mistake  of  his  predecessor,  yet  rloctrinal  i>r(judice  is  the 
most  probable  cause  of  his  so  thinking. 

When  we  consider  all  of  the  foregoing  sources  of  (•(.rrup-T''"p 


Kroiini)  of 


prise. 


tion   to  which  the   sacred    text  was   exposcMl   n)r  fourteen  htin-.s7,'rpri 
dred  years,  th(>  multitude  of  accidental    mistakes   to  which   a 
long  line  of  copyists  were  exp(.s( d,  the  constant  temptation  of 
ambitions  scholars  to   make  what  they  might  think  imj)rove- 
racnts  in    (he   style,  and   the  almost  irresistible  inclination  on 


24  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEAV  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

the  part  of  sectaries  engaged  in  fierce  controversy  to  make 
the  Scriptures  conform  to  their  dogmas,  we  have  reason  to  be 
surprised,  not  that  there  are  so  many  various  readings,  but  that 
they  are  so  few  and  of  so  little  importance.  Nothing  short  of 
a  mjracle  could  have  prevented  their  existence,  and  nothing 
short  of  reverence  for  divine  things  can  have  so  limited  their 
number  and  character. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


MEANS  OF  RESTORING   THE  ORIGINAL  TEXT. 


The  materials  employed  by  Biblical  critics  for  the  restora-Thematen 

-,  ...  ,  .  ,  ,.     alsofcrit.- 

tiou   of  the  original   text  are  the  same  ancient  documeuts  in  cism 
which   the   various   readings    are   found.     Though    imperfect "*™^^- 
and  conflicting  they  contain  the  evidence  by  which  the  perfect 
original  is  to  be  restored.     These  materials  are 
I.  Ancient  Greek  Manuscripts, 
II.  Ancient  Translations, 

III.  Quotations  made  by  Ancient  Writers, 

IV.  Internal  Evidence. 

We  will  consider  these  materials  or  sources  of  criticism 
separately  in  the  order  in  which  we  have  named  them,  and 
will  then  show  briefly  and  in  general  terms  the  manner  in 
which  a  decision  is  reached  by  means  of  their  combined  testi- 
mony. 

I.  Ancient  CJrekk  MANUscRir^Ts. 

The  autof^raphs  of  the  New  Testament  writers  perished '^'^^  *"*°' 
in  all  probability  at  an  early  day.  Unless  they  were  written 
on  the  best  of  parchment  or  vellum/  and  were  kept  with 
special  reference  to  long-continued  preservation,  their  de- 
struction was  inevitable.  While  parchment  was  certiiinly 
used  by  the  apostle  Paul,  as  we  see  from  a  remark  in  II.  Xim. '^''^^"'""^'^ 

10  /  1       ^-^  •  writing  ma 

IV.  16,  yet  paper  (the  Egyptian  pajiyrus,  made  from  the  inner teriui. 
bark  of  a  reed),  was  used  by  the  apostle  John   in  writing  his 

'  The  term  "  parelmiint "  i.s con-  skiii.s  of  very  younjr  oalvts  or  ante- 
fined  to  the  writinjr  material  innde  lopes.    The  latter  is  the  more  costly 
from  the  skin.s  of  sheep  and  noalB,  and  tlie  more  dural)le. 
and    "vellum"   to  that    from   the 

1^5) 


andof  MSS. 

)f  ti  rst 


26  INTE(;i!ll'Y   «)F    THK 

shorter  epistles.     II.  John   i.  12.      It  is  highly  2)robable  that 

on  tins  latter  material,  which  is  quite  brittle  and  perishable, 

much  of  the  XeAV -Testament  was  written;  and  although  some 

specimens  of  very  ancient  papyrus  manuscripts,  iiaving  been 

l)uried  in   Egyptian  tombs  or  in   the  ruins  of  Herculaneum, 

have  been  preserved,  yet  documents  like  the  apostolic  writings, 

Unavoid-     which   must  have   passed   rapidly  from  hand  to  hand,  for  the 

structiou  of  purpose  both  of  reading  and  copying,  could  scarcely  fail  to 

ttuiogruphs  perish   in   a  siiort  time.     Even  those  written  on  parchment 

would  soon  be  defaced  by  this  |)rocess  and  cease  to  be  prized 

on  account  of  the  superior  freshness  of  the  copies  taken  from 

them*.     The  tliought  of  serious  errors  in  the  copies  was  not 

entertained,    and    consequently    the    idea    of  preserving    the 

originals  as  a  standard  of  accuracy  was  not  suggested. 

Not  only  have  the  autographs  most  probably  peri.shed, 
that- ecu  but  all  the  copies  made  directly  from  them,  and  indeed  all 
'"'^"■*  made  during  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  the  church's  his- 
tory have  met  with  the  same  fate  so  far  as  we  know.  Multitudes 
of  the  sacred  books  were  hunted  and  destroyed  by  the  heathen 
in  the  various  persecutions  through  which  the  early  church 
passed,  and  this  must  have  created  a  tendency  to  the  use  of 
cheap  and  perishable  materials  in  making  copies  of  them. 

As  we  iiavt!  remarked   in  a  previous  cliapter,  the  earliest 
Greek  manuscripts  were  written  entirely  with  capital   letters; 
but  during  the  ninth  and  tentli  centuries  a  change  in  the  size 
and  form  of  the  letters  was  gradually  introduced  to  lessen  the 
cursive'"'    ^^'"*''  "^  Copying.      The   new  style  was  called   the  cursive,  or 
MS8  distill  running  hand,  while  the  old  was  named  uncial,  or  inch  long, 
'^""'  ^  ■      an  exaggeration  of  the  size  of  the  letters.'     Manuscripts  writ- 
ten in  the  old  form  are  called  Uncials;  those  in  the  new  form. 
Cursives.     The  cursive  style  of  writing  .seems  to  have  been 
employed  on  other  works  much  earlier  than  on  the  Scriptures; 

'"  Speaking  pencrally,  and  limit-  elcvi-iitii    ((iitiiry;    cursive  letters 

inj,'  our  statement  to  (ireek  nianii-  were  (•nii)loyeii  as  early  as  the  ninth 

BcriptH  of  the  New  TcHtament,  un-  or  tentli  century,  and  continued  in 

cial    letters    prevailed     from     the  use  until  the  invention  of  j)rinting 

fourth  to  the  tenth  or  (in  the  case  supersecled  the   humble   labors  of 

of  liturgical  hooks)  as  late  as  the  the   scribe."     (Scrivener,  Inf.,  58.) 


NEW  TKSTAMKNT  TKXT.  27 

for  the  earliest  cursive  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament  now  ^'"■''''^' 

*  ^  '  cursive. 

known  to  exist  bears  date  A.  D.  978. 

Of  uncial  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  only  eighty-three  ^";«f""- 

•'      °     •'  ciaisof  New- 

are  now  known   to  critics;^   but  this  is  a  large  number  com- TestauK-m 

pired    with    that   of   classical    works  of  like   antiquity.     Of*','^!|.^ 

Homer,  for  example,  only  a  few  fragments  exist  in  this  form, 

while  the  oldest  complete  copy  of  his  works  is  a  cursive  of  the 

thirteenth  century.^     There  is  but  one  uncial  copy  of  Virgil, 

and  one  each  of  ^T^schylus  and  Sophocles.' 

Of  tliese  eighty-three  uncial   MSS.  there  are  but  few  that "'''"'«'"' "' 

'^      •'  uncials. 

originally  contained  the  whole  New  Testament,  and  only- one 
that  contains  it  now.  Much  the  greater  part  were  originally 
copies  of  single  books,  or  of  groujrs  of  books,  and  nio.st  of  these 
are  now  fragmentary.  The  four  Gospels  are  found  in  a  good 
degree  of  completeness  in  four  of  them.  Acts  in  nine,  the 
Catholic  epistles  in  seven,  the  epistles  of  Paul  in  nine,  and  the 
Apocalypse  in  five.* 

The  cursive  MSS.  are  far  more  numerous.     Scriven*  gives  ^'*""'*    , 

*=■  _         contents  of 

a  catalogue  and  description  of  1,997  ; "  and  of  these  about  thirty  cursives. 
contain  all  of  the  New  Testament,^  while  the  remainder,  like 
the  uncials,  are  copies  of  single  books,  or  of  groups  of  books, 
many  of  them  in  a  mutilated  condition.  Thus  we  see  that 
while  the  Scriptures  existed  only  in  manuscript,  the  number  uf 
complete  copies  was  comparatively  small. 


Besides  the  manuscript  copies  of  New  Testament  book.s,  a 


Leclionar- 
ies, 


class  of  works  called  Lectionaries  (reading  lessons),  were 
anciently  in  common  use,  which  serve  the  purposes  of  criti- 
cism in  a  similar  way.  These  consisted  of  passages  selected 
from  the  historical  books  and  the  epistles,  for  public  reading  in 
the  churches  on  consecutive  Sundavs  throughout  the  year.    ( )f '''eir  num- 

"  •  bur,  cursive 

these  about  540  have  been  preserved,  of  which  about  eighty  and  uuciaL 

'  Jh.  40,  note  1.  *  Scrivener,  Int.  4. 

'^  Tliis   is  tlie  whole    nninber    of  *  Dr.  Pliilij)  Sch:i(r,  Int.  to  Ainer- 

dietiiu't     inamiscripts     given      in  icaii   Edition  of  (irci'k  Tt-stainent 

Scrivener's  list  (Int.  87-177),  though  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  p.  xiv. 

the  number  as  he  counts  them,  re-  *  Westcott  and  Hort,  Int.  75. 

peating  several  times  tiio  count  of  *  Introduction,  307  cp.  Appendix 

those  containing  hirge  portions  of  xxx.  witf. 

the  New  Testament,  is  97.  '  Westcott  and  Hurt,  Jul.  76. 


28  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

are  unciulis.'     Tlie  cursives  of  this  cliiss  are  incliitled  iu  the 
1,997  meutioued  above,  but  the  uucials  must  be  added   to  the 
eighty-three  mentioned  before,  making-  all  tiie  uneial  MSS.  of 
portions  of  tlie  New  Testament  about  1G3. 
How  the  Ancient    manuscripts   were    preserved    tlirough    the    dark 

MSS.  were 

vreserved,  agcs,  not  SO  much  by  the  care  as  by  tlie  neglect  of  their 
owners.  After  being  used  for  a  comparatively  short  time, 
they  were  laid  away  in  libraries,  because  their  owners  had 
ceased  to  read  tliem,  and  their  very  existence  in  many  cases 
passed  out  of  human  knowledge.     The  immense  library  of  the 

and  where.  Yatjcaii  ])alace   in  Rome,  founded  in   1448,  now  occupying  a 

room  2,100  feet  in  length,  is  one  of  the  largest  depositories  of 

such  documents,  but  the  most  of  them  liave  been  found  in  the 

neglected   libraries  of  convents  and   monasteries  which   were 

establislied   in    large    numbers   throughout   southern    Europe, 

northern   Africa,  and  western   Asia,   during  the  f)urth,   fifth 

and  sixtli  centuries.     In  these  places  they  have  been  found  by 

Biblical  critics,  who  have  made  their  contents  known  to  the 

learned  worhl. 

Names  of  Mauu.scripts  when  thus  discovered  were  named  after  their 

.\i.ss. :  * 

discoverers,  or  after  the  places  in  which  they  had  been  kept;  or 

they  were  distinguished  by  the  numbers  which  they  bore  in  the 

library  catalogues.     Most  of  the  cursives  are  now  designated 

ofcursives,  by  numerals,  though  some  are  known  by  the  small  letters  of 
the   Roman   alphabet.     The   uncials,  wiiile   still   bearing   the 

ofunciiiis.  names  fir.-t  given,  are  now  more  conveniently  designated  by 
the  capital  letters  of  the  Roman  and  Greek  alphabets,  while 
one  of  them  is  known  by  the  first  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alpha- 
Ijet.  In  some  "instances  one  capital  letter  is  made  to  stand  Ibr 
.several  MSS.  by  appending  small  letters  to  its  upper  right 
hand  curve.  Thu.s,  ()  (J'^  0''(>^  O'^O'"  O^  represent  seven  dis- 
tinct MSS.  Unfortunately  tlu;  letters  are  not  applied  to  them 
in  the  order  of  their  age  or  that  of  their  discovery. 

^,'''*""'  The  a«re  of  an  am-ient  i\IS.  is  not  determined,  like  tliat  of 

MSS  ,  how  '^  _  _  '  ^ 

deieriniru.i  a  modern   book,  ])y  a  date  on   its  title  page;  fi)r  the;  custom  of 
dating  books  did    not  originate  till   the  tenth   eentiny.      The 
earliest   Hiblieal   manus<;rij)t   bearing  a  date  is  the  copy  oi"  the 
'  Srrivencr's  Int.  L'SO  cp.  .\|tiien<lix  x.xs.  iiatr. 


NKW  TKSTAMKNT  TEXT.  29 

Gospels  known  as  S  in  the  Vatican  library,  which  was  writ- 
ten A.  D.  949.  But  an  uncial  MS.  shows  by  the  very  fact 
that  it  is  one,  that  it  \yas  written  previous  to  the  tenth  century, 
while  a  cursive  shows  in  the  same  way  that  it  was  written  since 
that  century.  This  is  the  most  general  classification  of  MSS. 
with  respect  to  age.  But  while  all  scripture  MSS.  before  the 
tenth  centuiy  were  written  in  capital  letters,  the  forms  of  the 
letters  underwent  some  changes  from  time  to  time,  and  by 
these  changes  the  dates  of  MSS.  can  be  proximately  deter- 
mined.* The  gradual  introduction  of  punctuation  marks,  of 
abbreviations  for  words  of  frequent  occurrence,^  of  larger  letters 
at  the  beginning  of  sections,  and  of  spaces  between  the  words, 
are  among  the  other  marks  of  date.  By  such  mean.s,  and  the 
use  of  the  skill  acquired  by  protracted  and  minute  observation, 
a  critic  is  ena])led  to  determine,  within  very  narrow  limits, 
the  date  of  any  MS.  There  is  a  striking  analogy  to  this  in 
the  history  of  printed  books.  If  we  open  a  book  in  which  the  ^'^"'"■*tJo" 
letter  s  is  printed/,  we  know  thai  it  was  printed  not  later  than ed  books, 
about  the  year  1830,  after  which  this  form  of  the  letter  passed 
out  of  u-e.  If  we  open  one,  however  old  in  appearance,  and 
find  ,^teel  engravings  in  it,  we  know  that  it  can  not  have  been 
j)rinted  earlier  than  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  for 
engraving  on  steel  was  first  invented  in  the  ycar.1805.-*  Again, 
if  we  find  in  a  book  the  capital  V  used  for  both  v  and  u,  the 
small  u  used  for  both  u  and  v,  we  know  that  it  belongs  to  the 
earliest  period  of  printing;  for  such  was  then  the  custom  in 
regard  to  these  two  letters.  So  accurately  are  the  indications 
of  date  in  ancient  MSS.  now  interpreted,  that  there  is  no  serious 
disagreement  among  competent  critics  regarding  the  century, 
or  even  the  half  century  in  which  any  well  known  MS.  was 
written. 

There   are    fnii-    iinciiils    whose   antiquity    is  so  gredt  and '^''<^ '""■" 
whose  value  is  so  preeminent  that  every  student  of  the  Script- ciais. 

^  See  Scrivener's  Introduction,  §  tlieso  are  ^c,  ff,  ";,  ,if,  tm,  for  Hear, 

10,  pp.  29-li9,  where  tliesc  changes  Kvpw:,  trfaoix,  ;t/'«n"<Jf,  nvevftn. 

are  minutely  traced  with  respect  to  '  New  American  Cyclopedia.  Art. 

every  letter  of  tiie  alphabet.  Engraving. 

'  Among  the   most    common   of 


30  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

ures   should  have  at  least  a  general  knowledge  of  them,  and 
this  we  now  proceed  to  give : 
sinaitic  J    Xlie   Coclex  Slnaiticus,  or  Sinaitic   Manuscript,  usually 

Sin.  designated  by  n  (aleph)  the  first  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alpha- 

bet.    This    is    the    one    uncial  MS.    which  contains  all   the 
Contents,    books  of  the  New  Testament.     It  also  contains  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  has 
appended  to  the  New  Testament  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and 
a   portion   of  The  Shepherd  by  Hernias,  two  documents   of 
which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  in  Part  Second  of  this 
dimension.s  work.     It  is  written  on  vellura,  and  its  leaves  are  13^  inches 
wide  by  nearly  15  in   length.     It  is  supposed  that  before  it 
lost  the  absent  portions  of  the   Old   Testament  and   of  The 
No.oi  pages  Shepherd,  it  contained  730  leaves,  or  1460  pages — a  very  large 
history,       book.     But  uow  it  coutains  only  790  pages.     It  was  found  by 
Tischendorf  in  the   Convent  of  St.    Catharine   at  the  foot  of 
Mt.  Sinai,  in  the  year  1859,  and  it  is  now  kept  in  the  imperial 
library  at  St.  Petersburg;  but  through  the  munificence  of  the 
late  Czar  Alexander  three  hundred /ac  simile  copies  of  it  have 
been  distributed  among  the  public  libraries  of  Europe  and 
America.'     Biblical  critics  unite  in  ascribing  it  to  the  middle 
value.         or  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century.     In  point  of  value  it 
has  but  one  rival  for  the  highest  place  among  all  existing  man- 
uscripts of  the  New  Testament. 
Aiexan<iri-         2.   Codcx  Alexandvinus,  or  the    Alexandrian  Manuscript, 
r^ofi  Aii-x.  d'sigiiatcd  l)y  A.     It  is  in  four  volumes,  of  which  the  iirst  three 
;^-  contain  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  almost 

complete,  and  the  fourth  the  New  Testament  with  some  wide 
gaps.  It  lacks  all  of  Matthew  up  to  xxv.  6,  two  leaves  of 
John's  Gospel,  including  vi.  50— viii.  52,  and  three  loaves  from 
II,  Corinthians,  including  iv.  13 — xii.(>.  Appended  to  the  New 
Testament  are  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement,  and  a  portion  of 
the  second.  Its  leaves,  of  which  there  are  793,  are  about  13 
inches  long  and  10  broad,  and  tiie  writing  is  in  two  columns  to 
the  page.      It  was  sent  as  a  present  to  Charles  I.  of  England, 

'  Ther(>  is  a  ropy  rnrli  in  tin;  Con-  librarios  of  the  Union  Tlioolojriral 
gressional  Library  at  Wasliinirton,  Seminary,  Ilarvanl  llnivt'r.sity  and 
the  Astor  Library,  N<\v  York,  tlio    the  AndovcrTbcological  Seminary 


(Jonlenis. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  31 

in  1628,  by  Cyril  Lucar,  the  Greek  Patriarch  of  Constantino- 
ple, who  had  previously  brought  it  from  Alexandria.  It  is 
kept  in  the  British  Museum,  where  the  open  volume  of  the 
New  Testament  portion  can  be  seen  under  glass  by  every  vis- 
itor. Its  date  is  assigned  by  the  common  judgment  of  critics 
to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century  or  the  close  of  the  fourth. 
It  occupies  the  third  place  in  point  of  value  among  the  great  vuiue. 
manuscripts. 

3.    Codex  Vaticanus,  or  the  Vatican  Manmcrlpt,  known  as ^j*^''^^!;'^ 
B.     This,  like  the  two  preceding,  was  originally  designed  for  vut.  b. 
a  complete  Greek  Bible;  but  it  now  lacks  the  first  forty-six 
chapters  of    Genesis,    and    thirty-two    of    the  Psalms    (cv.- co»ients. 
cxxxvii.);  and  the   New  Testament  part  terminates   at  Heb. 
ix.  14.     The  remainder  of  the  New  Testament   has  been  ap- 
pended by  a  later  hand.      It  is  written  on  very  thin  and  deli- ""^"'"'' 
cate  vellum,  supposed  to  have  been   made   from  the  skins  of 
antelopes,  and  it  makes  a  volume  ten  and   a  half  inches  long,'*"''^' 
ten  broad,  and  four  and  a  half  thick,  with  1518  pages.     It  was 
placed   in   the  Vatican   library  shortly  after  its  first  establish- ''"''"■■■• 
ment   in   1448,  and  there  it  is  still  very  carefully  preserved. 
Of  its  previous  history  nothing  is  known.     Few  persons  have 
been  allowed  to  handle  it,  though  the  open  volume  is  kept  on 
exhibition   under  glass  in  a  magnificent  hall  filled  with  other 
rich  treasures  of  the  Vatican.      In  point  of  antiquity,  it  is  the 
rival  of  the  Sinaitic,  both  belonging  to  the  middle  or  the  first 
half  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  opinions  of  scholars  being 
divided  as  to  which  is  the  older.     The  narrow  jealousy  of  the 
Popes   and   their    Councils  has    prevented    minute    examina- 
tion of  it  by  Protestant   critics,  and  it  was  not  until  the  year 
1881  that  a  printed  edition   of  the  New  Testament  portion, 
marked  by  many  imperfections,  was  given  to  the   world  by 
some  Italian  .scOiolars.'     But   notwithstanding    the  imperfect 

'  In     Scrivener's     Introduction,  ment.     The  jealousy  of  the  Papal 

1 05-1 IG,  there  is  a  full  acoouut  of  authoritie.s  has  to  this  day  excluded 

the     futile    efForts     made    during  Prot«'stant  seludars  from  the  piivi- 

nearly  half  a  century  to  ohtain  an  lege  of  carefully  eoilatinj;  it,  and 

accurate    ac(|uaintance    with    the  the  eollations  made  hy  Catholics 

readings  of  this  venerable  docu-  have  proved  unsatisfactory. 


32  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

value.         knowledge  of  it  which  has  been  obtained  it  is  now  regarded  by 

some  critics  as  the  most  reliable  of  all  existing  manuscripts. 
cod.Eph.c.        4.    Kext   in    point  of  antiquity  and  value   is  Codex  Eph- 
Coiitents,     raemi,   C,  in  the  National   Library  of    Paris.     It  contains  a 
small   portion  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  and  fragments 
of  every  book  of  the  New  Testament  exce])t  II.  Thcsi^alonians 
and  II.  John,  amounting  to  about  two-thirds  of  the  whole  New 
Testament.     It  is  written,  like  the  three  preceding,  on  vellum, 
size,  and  its  leaves  are  about  the  size  of  those  in   A.     It  is  what  is 

nature  of    called  apalhiipsest  manuscript,  or  a  codex  rescriptus  ;  that  is,  a 
'copy  on  which  another  work  has  been  written  over  the  faded 
letters  of  the  original  writing.     This  MS.  consii^ts  of  detached 
leaves  of  an  ancient  Greek  Bible  written  over  with  some  works 
of  a  Syrian   Christian   of  the   fourth   century  called   St.  Eph- 
raem,  whence  its  name.     The  new  writing  was  done  about  the 
twelfth   century,  but  it  did   not   entirely  efface   the   original. 
Where  the   latter   had    faded  too   much  to  be  read  it  has  been 
restored  l)y  the  use  of  chemicals,  and  the  contents  of  the  man- 
date, uscript  have  been  copied  and  printed.     Its  date  is  about  the 
same  as  tha-t  of  A,  and  it  is  believed  by  some  to  be  more  accurate. 
value,         It  was  brought  from  some  unknown  library  in  the  East  to  Flor- 
iiistory.       tnce  in  1535,  and  was  soon  afterward  brought  to  Paris  together 
with  a  number  of  other  ancient  ISISS.  wliich  are   still    k('{)t   in 
the  National  Library  of  France. 
MS3.  iiiu  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  the  ancient  Greek  MSS.  which 
we   have   now   mentioned,  and  especially  the    ftur   which  we 


ucsses. 


have  just  described,  must  constitute  the  most  reliable  class  of 
witnesses  concerning  the  exact  reading  of  the  original  Script- 
ures. Where  they  all  agree,  as  they  do  according  to  Dr. 
Hort's  estimate  quoted  in  a  formc^r  cha])ter,  in  seven-eighths 
of  the  whole  New  Testament,  there  can  be  no  room  for  doubt 
that  we  have  the  original  perfectly  preserved.  Where  they 
TfBiimony  differ   in    scusc,  it  is  the  business  of  the  critic  to  estimate  the 

weighed  by  r     \     •  ■  •        ■<  r     \  •  t 

preponderance   ot   their  testnnonv  m    lav<»i' of    (Ins  reading  or 

that.      In  mf)st  iii^taiiees' this  j)rej)ondeiiniee  is  sd  Lrreat  as  to 

leave  little  if  any  room  for  doubt.      In  eslimatinp;  it   reference 

number,      is  had    imt   merely  to   the    innnhcr  oi    MSS.  on   eii  her  ^jdc,  but 

aiiticjuity,    also   to    their   an(i<juity  :iii<l    their   known  aeeuraey.      \\  hen  a 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  33 

MS.  has  been  found  by  comparison  with  others  to  be  gener- 
ally accurate,  its  testimony  in  a  particultir  place  has  greater "'"^ "*^'^"™- 
weight,  and  vice  versa.  And  when  a  MS,,  though  not  very 
ancient  itself,  contains  evidence  of  having  been  copied  from 
one  that  is  ancient,  its  readings  are  enhanced  in  value.  It  has 
also  been  found  that  MSS.  are  distributable  into  t^roups  called  ""''^'^''''" 
families,  each  family  having  sprung  from  a  parent  copy  ofgencaiogy. 
more  ancient  date.  Those  of  the  same  family  arc  known  by 
having  certain  variant  readings  in  common  which  arc  not 
found  in  members  of  other  families.  Critics  are  on  this  ac- 
count led  to  the  study  of  the  genealogy  of  MSS.;  for  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  testimony  of  a  whole  family  in  favor  of  a  certain 
reading,  is  no  stronger  than  that  of  the  parent  of  the  family.' 
These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  show  that  many  years  of  study, 
combined  with  a  well  balanced  judgment,  are  necessary  to 
proliciency  as  a  Biblical  critic. 

II.  Ancient  Versions.  A  translation  of  the  Scriptures  ^'"^^e of 
from  Greek  into  another  language,  enables  a  scholar  who  un-sions. 
derstands  both  languages  to  determine  ap])roximately  the  word- 
ing of  the  Greek  text  from  which  the  translation  was  made. 
It  enables  him  especially  to  determine  whether  a  given  clause 
or  .sentence,  or  a  leading  word  in  a  .sentence,  was  al)sent  or  not 
from   the  Greek    copy  that  was   u-sed.^     The   MSS.  of  ancient'''''*^''' ^^S"^- 

defective. 

translations,  however,  have  suffered,  like  the  Greek  MSS.,  at 
^he  hands  of  transcribers  ;  and  eonsecjuently  in  the  u.sc  of  them 
the  critic  has  to  make  due  allowance  for  the  chanjies  thus  in- 
troduced.  Though  this  detracts  from  what  would  otherwise 
bo    the  authority  of  these  witne.s.se.s,  it  still   leaves  them  with 

'  Dr.  llort   lia.s  given  more  uttcn-  scripts,  and  in  most  instances  may 

tion  to  tlui  suitject  of  genealogies  be    eiiij)loye(l  even    for  arranging 

than  any  otlier  critic,  since  (.Jries-  the  order  of  words,  yet  every  hm- 

hach,  and  tiie  student  wlio  wishes  guage   diflers  so   widely   in   spirit 

to  be  fully  informed  on  the  8ut)ject  from  every  other,  and  the  genius 

should  consult  his  IntroductiDii  to  of  one  version  is  so  much  at  vari- 

the  Greek  New  Testament  of  West-  ance  with  that  of  others,  that  too 

cott  and  Hort,  tsec.  iii.  great  caution  can   not  Im;  used  in 

'  "  While  versions  are  always  of  applying   this   kind   of    testimony 

weight  in  determining  the  aiitlien-  to    the   criticism    of    the   Greek" 

ticity   of  senten(-es  or  clauses  in-  (Scrivener,  Int.,  310). 
serted  or  oiiiitted  by  Greek  manu- 


34  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

an  authority  second  only  to  that  of  the  Greek  MSS.,  and  the 
authority  of  some  of  them  is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  they 
are  oUler  than  any  known  MS.,  and  testify  to  readings  cor- 
respondingly more  ancient.  Modern  versions  are  of  no  value 
for  this  purpose,  seeing  that  tiiey  arc  made  either  from  com- 
paratively modern  MSS.,  or  from  ancient  MSS.  which  can 
themselves  be  consulted.' 
Thevcr-  ^\^q  aucicut  vcrsious,  which  arc  chiefly  used  by  critics,  are 

sions  used. 

the  loUowing  : 
the  Peshiio        I    Ti^^  Peshito  Syriac.     This  is  a  translation  of  both  the  Old 

Syriac,  *^ 

and  the  New  Testament  into  Syriac  or  Aramcan,  the  language 
anciently  spoken  in  Northern  Syria  and  Upper  Mesopotamia. 
Many  evidences  combine  to  prove  that  it  was  made  in  the  .sec- 
ond century  of  our  era,  and  that  it  was  therefore  derived,  as 
regards  the  New  Testament,  from  a  Greek  text  which  had 
been  transmitted  not  quite  one  hundred  years  from  the  pens 
of  the  original  writers."  From  its  date  to  the  present  time  it 
has  been  the  common  Bible  of  the  Syrian  Christians,  and  ihey 
have  used  it  exclusively  in  their  public  worship.  It  must  have 
received  the  name  Peshito  {simple)  from  a  comparison  with 
some  versions  not  so  simple,  yet  there  is  another  and  later 
Syriac  version  that  is  more  literal.'^  It  lacks  four  of  the 
smaller  Epistles  (II.  Peter,  II.  and  III.  John,  and  Jude)  and  also 
the  Apocalypse.  It  is  the  most  valuable  of  all  versions  for 
the  purposes  of  Biblical  Criticism, 
the  Old  2.  The  Old  Latin.     This  is  a  tran.slation  of  the  Bible  into 

Latin, 

'  Trogellcs  rejects  the  use  of  all  original  unrevised   Syriac  Version 

versions  made  this  side  of  the  sev-  (Int.  to  Greek  New  Testament,  84, 

cnth  century  ( Histnry  of  the  Printed  132-135).     This  tlieorj',  though  ac- 

Text,  §  13).     But  the    majority   of  cepted  by  some  critics,  is  strongly 

critics  allow  the  rea<lings  of  some  contested  by  others,  especially  by 

versions  of  more  recent  date  to  be  Scrivener  (Int.  319  If,  5.33  IT) ;  but 

considered.  while    the    question    at    issue    is 

■'  Dr.  Hort  has  propounded    the  one    of    importance,    its    decision 

theory  that  the  original  underwent  either  way  will  not  modify  materi- 

a  revision  in  the  third  century,  and  ally  the  statements  which  we  make 

that  the  Peshito  is  the  result  of  concerning  the  version  in  this  treat- 

this  revisirm,  while  a  .MS.  in  th(!  ise. 

Briti.sh     Museum    known    as    the  ''The  Philoxenian,  or    Ilarclean 

Curetonian    Syriac  reprcKents  the  (Scrivener,  Jut.  318-325). 


NEW  TKSTAMKNT  TKXT.  35 

Latin,  made  in  the  second  century,  as  is  known  from  its  being 
cited  by  Latin  writers  as  tar  back  as  Tertullian,  who  lived 
from  about  150  to  220  A.  D.  It  was  made,  not  in  luily,  as 
would  be  naturally  su^jjosed,  but  in  North  Africa,  where  the 
Latin  language  prevailed,  and  where  there  was  a  vast  multi- 
tude of  Christian  converts  at  a  very  early  day.  It  was  super- 
seded in  l)()th  public  and  private  use  by  a  later  Latin  version, 
and  consequently  it  has  not  been  preserved  entire;  but  thirty- 
eight  fragments  of  it,  representing  portions  of  almost  every 
book  of  the  New  Testament,  are  yet  in  existence,'  and  large 
portions  of  it  are  quoted  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Latin 
fathers.  It  was  made  about  the  same  time  as  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion, and  they  both  represent  Greek  copies  two  hundred  years 
older  than  the  oldest  existing  Greek  manuscripts,  the  one  an- 
swering to  the  Greek  scriptures  current  in  Syria,  and  the  other 
to  those  current  in  Africa. 

3.  The  Latin  Vulgate.     When  the  old  Latin  version  had  T^e  i.atin 

.  /•  1      1  i-rt»        Vulgate, 

been  in  use  about  two  hundred  years,  it  was  found  that  diner- 
ent  copies  of  it  contained  many  variation^;,  and  to  remedy  the 
evil  Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  ordered  a  revision  of  it  to  be 
made.  The  task  was  entrusted  to  Jerome,  in  the  year  382,  and 
he  completed  it  in  385,  This  version  gradually  took  the  place 
of  the  Old  Latin,  and  at  length  acquired  the  title  Vulgate,  or 
Common  Version,  This  is  the  version,  which,  after  passing 
through  some  later  revisions,  was  canonized  in  1546  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  decreed  that  "in  public  readings,  dis- 
putations, preaching  and  exposition  it  should  be  held  &s  authen- 
tic." Since  that  time  all  Roman  Catholic  translations  into  other 
tongues  are  made  from  it,  ;ind  not  from  the  original  Greek. 
As  Jerome,  in  preparing  it,  made  use  of  what  he  then  called 
"ancient  Greek  manuscripts,"  it  represents  a  Greek  text  inneh 
older  than  itself,  and  older  than  the  earliest  MSS.  now  extant. 
The  manuscript  copies  of  it  of  which  many  have  been  pre- 
served, are  considered  more  valuable  than  the  Old  Latin,  as 
aids  to  criticism." 

4.  The  Egyptian  or  Coptic   Versions.     When  the    Arabs  The CopUc. 

'  A  catalogue  and  description  of   ener's  Introducfion,  342  ff. 
thpso  frnginonts  is  given  in  Scriv-       "  Scrivener,  Int.,  3()0. 


36  INTEGRITY  OF  THF 

conquered  Egypt  in  the  seventh  century,  they  gave  the  namo 
Copts  to  the  Egyptian  Christians,  and  their  hinguage  has  been 
calk'd  Coptic  ever  since.  It  had  been  M-ritten  in  alphabetic 
characters  since  about  the  time  of  the  first  establishment  o( 
Christianity  in  Egypt.  Before  that  time  the  common  written 
language  of  the  people  had  been  partly  alphabetic  and  partly 
hieroglyphic.  The  language  was  spoken  in  two  dialects,  one 
in  Lower  Egypt,  called  the  Bahiric,  from  Bahirah,  the  Egyptian 
name  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  the  ^lemphitic,  from  JMemphis,  tho 
principal  city;  and  the  other,  in  Upper  Egypt,  called  Sahidic, 
from  Sahid,  the  name  of  the  district,  and  Thebaic,  from  Thebes, 
the  })rincipal  city.  The  scriptures  were  translated  at  a  very 
early  period  into  both  of  these  dialects,  and  it  is  the  opinion  oi 
Bishop  Lightfoot,  the  most  proficient  student  of  the  Coptic 
dialects  in  Great  Britain,  that  at  least  portions  of  them  were 
thus  translated  before  the  close  of  the  second  century.^  Both 
these  versions  contain  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
though  the  Apocalypse  is  usually  in  a  separate  volnme,  as  if  it 
were  not  considered  an  undoubted  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  almost  as  ancient  as  the  Peshito  Syriac  and  the  Old 
Latin,  and  Lightfoot  regards  them  as  of  superior  value  in 
Biblical  criticism  to  those  venerable  versions,"'  Thus  it  ap- 
pears that  we  have  four  translations  of  the  New  Testament 
that  were  made  previous  to  the  date  of  our  oldest  existing 
Greek  copies. 

'  The  section  on  Tlic;  New  Testa-  free   from   the  corruptions   which 

ment  in  Coptic,  m  Scrivener's  In-  prevailed  so  widely  in  the  cojues 

troduction,  was  prepared  by  Lif,'hf-  of  the  second  century  "  (Pape  392). 

foot,   then  a  Professor  at  Oxford,  Of  the  Thel)aic  ho  says:  "Its  text- 

and  from  it  the  above  account  of  ual  value  is  p.Thaps  only  second 

the  Coptic  versions  is  derived.    He  to  the  Meniphitic  anionfi  the  early 

expresses  the  opinion  qnoteil  above  versions.     It   nnquestioiuibly  pre 

on  p.  371.  serves  a  very  ancient  text,  but  it  is 

'He  says:  "  0{  all  the  versions,  less  pure,  and  exhilnts  a  certain 
the  Mennphitic  is  jierhaps  the  most  infusion  of  those  readings  whicli 
important  for  the  textual  critic,  were  so  widely  spread  in  the  .see- 
In  point  of  antiquity  it  must  yield  ond  century,  and  which  (for  want 
the  palm  to  the  Old  Syriac  and  tlie  of  a  better  term)  are  often  called 
Old  Latin;  hut,  unlike  them,  it  Western,  thon^di  to  nothintr  like 
preserves  the  best  text  aa  current  the  same  extent  as  the  Old  Latia 
among    the   Alexandrian    fathers,  and  the  Old  Syriac  "  (l'a>:e  400). 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  lU 

5.  The  iEthiopic   Version.     The    ^thiopic    language    isthe^thio- 
closely  related  to  the  Arabic,  and  was  anciently  spoken  in  the 
country  now  called  Abyssinia,  where  the  Chi'istian   religion 
i>ecame  prevalent  in  the  fourth  century.     A  vernacular  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  soon   became  a  necessity,  and 

one  was  made  near  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth.  All  the  books  of  both  Testaments  were  in- 
cluded in  it. 

6.  The  Gothic  Version.     While  the  Goths  were  invading  the  Gothic, 
Southern  Europe,  they  were  in  turn  invaded  by  the  mission- 
aries of  the  cross,  and   so  many  of  them  were  turned  to  the 

faith,  that  Ulphilas,  a  Cappadocian,  who  had  gone  among  them 
in  the  year  345,  made  an  alphabet  of  their  language  and  trans- 
lated into  it  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  As  he  died 
in  the  year  388  his  version  belongs  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
fourth  century.  There  is  still  extant  an  uncial  manuscript  of 
this  version,  made  near  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century, 
written  on  purple  vellum  in  letters  of  silver  with  occasionally 
some  in  gold.  It  belongs  to  Sweden,  and  is  kept  in  the  library 
of  the  University  of  Upsal. 

7.  The  Armenian  Version.     The  Armenians  claim  to  have '*^® '*^''™^ 
been  the  first  people  who  accepted   the  gospel  as  a  national 

faith,  but  they  were  then  without  an  alphabet  of  their  own 
language.  They  read  the  Scriptures  in  Syriac,  using  the 
Peshito  version  until  the  fifth  century,  when  Miesrob,  one  of 
their  own  countrymen,  invented  an  Armenian  alphabet,  and 
with  the  a.ssistance  of  other  scholars,  translated  into  the  native 
tongue  the  whole  Bible.  Unfortunately,  no  very  ancient 
manuscripts  of  tiiis  version  have  been  preserved. 

The  versions  which  we  have  now  named  represent  in  the^'"'"'^°^ 
aggregate  the  copies  of  the  Greek  Scriptures  whicii  were.si'.ma.^^' 
known  and  used  in  every  part  of  the  world  that  had  been 
evangelized  up  to  the  clo.se  of  the  fourth  century.  Their  value 
for  the  purpose  of  deternuniiig  the  condition  of  the  original 
during  the  two  luiiidrcd  and  fifty  preceding  years  can  scarcely 
be  overestimated. 

III.    Quotatidu.s  iiKiflc  by  Ajicioif  Authurti.      Ancient  Chris- guotaiious 
tJan  writers  were  in  the  habit  of  quoting  the  scriptures  in  th^jw* 


38  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

writings  very  much  as  we  quote  them  now,  and  it  is  clear  that 
every  literal  quotation  made  by  one  of  them  from  the  Greek 
Testament  shows  the  reading  in  tiiat  place  of  the  manuscript 
which  he  used.  Even  an  allusion  to  a  certain  passage  may 
sometimes  enable  the  critic  to  determine  whether  a  clause  now  in 
doul)t  was  present  in  the  passage  or  not.  In  a  few  instances  these 
,  writers  expressly  mention  differences  of  reading,  and  then  their 
testimony  is  explicit,  and,  to  the  extent  of  their  information, 
reliable.  This  source  of  evidence,  so  far  as  it  can  be  safely 
used,  is  of  very  great  value,  and  the  more  so  from  the  fact 
that  some  of  these  writers  lived  at  a  period  preceding  the  date 
of  our  earliest  manuscripts.  Had  their  writings  come  down 
to  us  entire  they  would  have  been  still  more  valuable,  l)ut 
some  of  the  best  of  them  have  reached  our  day  in  a  very  frag- 
mentary form.'  Their  value  has  been  further  depreciated  hv 
the  fact  that  their  MSS.,  like  those  of  the  scriptures  and  of 
the  versions,  have  undergone  some  changes,  and  that  none  of 
a  very  early  date  have  been  preserved."  Much  has  yet  to  be 
done  in  the  way  of  thoroughly  searching  those  that  remain  to 
UK,  before  all  the  evidence  from  this  source  will  be  in  hand. 

Internal  ev-  lY.  Internal  Evidence.  The  evidence  furnished  by  the  read- 
mgsot  (jrreek  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  and  quotations  made 
by  ancient  authors  is  called  external  evidence.  When  it  is  de- 
cisive, that  is,  when  the  preponderance  of  evidence  for  a  certain 
reading  from  all  of  these  sources  is  m)  great  as  to  leave  no  room 
for  doubt,  there  is  noocca,sion  for  evidence  from  any  other  source, 
liut  when  the  eviden<-e  from  these  three  sources  is  indecisive  re- 

whatitis,  s«jrt  must  he  had  to  what  is  called  internal  evidence.  This  is  (he 
evidence  foMn<l  by  exercising  the  judgment  on  two  ([uestioiisi^f 
j)robability ;  first,  which  of  two  conflicting  readings  is  the  more 
likely  to  have  been  substituted  for  the  other  by  a  transcriber; 

'  For  exami)le,  of  Origen's  con-  ^  "  Cotliees  of  tlie  Fathers  are  for 

tinuous  Coiiunontary  on  tl.c  Greek  the  most  part  of  much  lower  date 

New  Testaiiienf ,  written  at  the  be-  than  thone  of  the  Scriptures  which 

ginning  of  the  tliii<l  ceiifnry,  only  we  desire  to  amend  by  their  aid  ; 

about    one    sixth    lias   been    jiro-  not    many    being    older  than    the 

served  in  the  original  fireek.     The  tenth  <-eiitiiry,  the  far  greater  part 

whole  of  it  wmild  now  be  invaliia-  conHifleialily  more  Miodern."(8criv- 

ble  (Hurt,  Int.,  8.S.)  eiier,  Int.,  4lH.) 


NKW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  39 

and  second,  which  is  the  more  likely  to  have  been  employed  by 

the  original  writer.     In  judging  of  the  former  question,  we  are  to 

consider  all  l\\v  sources  of  error  to  which  copvists  were  exposed.  i»owem- 

.  ,  >  ployed, 

In  judging  of  the  latter,  we  are  to  consider  the  nsiia/  style  and 

mode  of  thought  of  the  writer,  and  also  the  bearing  of  the  con- 
text. Dr.  Hort,  with  fine  discrimination,  styles  this  kind  of 
evidence  internal  evidence  of"  readings,  and  he  distinguishes 
the  two  questions  of  probability  just  mentioned  by  the  terms 
intrinsic  probability,  referring  to  what  the  autlior  would  have 
written,  and  transcriptional  probability,  referring  to  the  work  of"'''^"<i^«i' 
the  transcriber,'  When  these  two  kinds  of  probability  are  in 
conflict  they  tend  to  neutralize  each  other;  but  when  they 
unite,  that  is,  when  the  reading  which  is  most  likely  to  have 
been  used  by  the  author  is  at  the  same  time  most  likely  to 
have  been  exchanged  by  transcribers  for  the  other,  the  inter- 
nal evidence  exists  in  its  strongest  form,  and  it  is  often  indis- 
pensable in  determining  questions  in  which  the  external  evi- 
dence is  conflicting.  Recent  critics  are  agreed,  however,  that 
corrections  of  the  text  should  seldom  or  never  be  made  on  this 
kind  of  evidence  alone.^ 

'  Dr.  Hort's  own  words  on  these  inal  Greek,  Int.  20). 
distinctions  are  remarkably  clear.  ^  On  this  point  Dr.  Scrivener 
After  introducing  the  expression  speaks  very  positively  :"  It  is  now 
Internal  Evidence,  he  say.s :  "As  agreed  among  competent  critics 
other  kinds  of  Internal  Evidence  that  Conjectural  Emendation  must 
will  have  to  be  mentioned,  we  pre-  never  be  resorted  to  even  in  pas- 
ter to  call  it  more  precisely  In-  sages  of  acknowledged  difliculty ; 
ternal  Evidence  of  Readings.  In-  the  absence  of  proof  that  a  reading 
ternal  Evidence  of  Readings  is  of  proposed  to  be  substituted  for  tlie 
two  kinds,  which  can  not  be  too  common  one  is  actually  supported 
liharply  distinguished  from  each  by  some  trustworthy  document  be- 
otlier  ;  appealing  respectively  to  ing  of  itself  a  fatal  objection  to  our 
Intrinsic  l'rol)al>ility,  having  refer-  receiving  it"  (//*/.  400).  Dr.  Hort 
ence  to  the  author,  and  what  may  expresses  himself  less  positively, 
be  called  Transcriptional  I'robaliil-  Speaking  of  Transcriptional  Proba- 
ity,  having  reft'rence  to  the  copy-  Itility  he  says:  "But  even  at  its 
ists.  In  appealing  to  tlie  first,  we  best  this  class  of  Internal  Evi- 
ask  what  an  autlior  is  likely  to  dence,  like  the  other,  carries  us 
have  written;  in  appealing  to  the  but  a  little  way  toward  the  recov- 
second,  we  ask  what  copyists  are  ery  of  an  ancient  text,  when  it  is 
likely  to  have  made  him  seem  to  employed  alone.  The  number  of 
tvrite  "   (New  Testament  in   Orig-  variations    in    which     it    can    be 


terials. 


40  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

Requisites          "\ye  now  liave  before  our  minds  all  the  materials  which  are 

for  use  of 

these  ma-  employed  by  Biblical  critics  in  restoring  the  original  text,  and 
it  is  evident  that  a  large  amount  of  patient  labor  and  a  sound 
judgment  are  necessary  in  order  to  the  skillful  application  of 
them  all  to  the  noble  end  proposed.  For  examples  of  this 
application  the  student  is  referred  to  the  critical  works  to  be 
mentioned  in  the  following  chapter. 

trusted  to  supply  by  itself  a  direct   ders,  that  is,  clerical  errors,  have 
and    immediate    decision    is  very    been  set  aside  "  (-^'i'- ^5). 
Binall,  when  unquestionable  blun- 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  LABORS  OF  BIBLICAL  CRITICS,  AXD  THE  RESULTS 
OBTAINED. 


We  are  now  prepared  for  a  brief  sketch  of  the  history  of '^''^  s'^^'ch 

....  .  .  '         proposed. 

Biblical  Criticism,  showing  particularly  the  successive  stages 
of  its  progress,  and  the  results  which  have  thus  far  been  at- 
tained. 

As  we  have  stated  before,  the  art  of  printing  is  the  parent  ^,"""^^*'°" 

.  -         .  ,  .      ^f  Biblical 

of  this  .science,  seeing  that  it  was  by  means  of  printed  copies  criticism 
that  the  attention  of  .scholars  was  first  awakened  to  the  jm.  ""^  print- 

ing. 

portance  of  the  subject  and  led  to  the  study  of  it.  The  early 
printed  editions,  being  copied  from  diflFerent  manuscripts  and  Origin  of 
printed  in  different  countries,  at  first  produced  confusion  by^,g^^^.j' 
their  differences,  and  afterward  led  to  the  adoption  without  Text, 
very  good  rea.sons  of  a "  Received  Text,"  which  became  a 
standard  for  all  others.  The  .steps  by  which  this  result  was 
reached  were  briefly  as  follows  :  The  Greek  Testament  of  Era.s- 
nius,  published  in  1516,  at  Basle,  Switzerland,  and  the  Com- 
plutentian  Polyglott,  ])rinted  at  Complutum  (Alcala)  in  Spain, 
in  1514,  but  not  published  till  1522,  were,  as  we  have  .said 
before,  the  first  printed  editions  of  the  New  Testament.  These 
editions  had  ciivulated  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  without 
rivals,  when  Rol)ert  Stephen,  a  celebrated  j)rinter  at  Paris, 
brought  out  an  edition  in  1546,  followed  rapidly  by  three 
others,  the  last  in  1551.  In  tliis  last  the  (Jreek  Testament 
was  first  divided  into  verses  numbered  on  the  margin,  the  di- 
vision into  chapters  having  been  introduced  in  the  liiitin  Bible 
in  1248.      The  purpose  of  both  divisions  was  to  facilitate  ref- 


42  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

erences  to  particular  passages.^  His  third  edition  (1500)  be- 
came the  standard  or  received  text  in  England,  and  from  it 
chiefly  the  English  version  was  made  in  1611.  In  1633  a  very 
small  Greek  Testament  was  published  at  Leyden  in  Holland, 
by  two  brothers  named  Elzevir,  in  which  the  verses  were 
marked  by  breaks  in  the  text,  and  not  merely  by  numbers  in 
the  margin  as  before.  In  a  somewhat  boastful  spirit,  the  Elze- 
virs remarked  in  their  preface,  "  Now  you  have  a  text  received 
by  all, in  which  we  give  nothing  clianged  or  corrupted."  The 
words  helped  forward  their  own  fulfillment,  and  this  edition 
became  the  Received  Text  on  the  Continent  of  Europe.  The 
differences  between  its  readings  and  those  of  the  edition  of 
Stephen  are  not  very  numerous  nor  very  important.  Neither 
of  these  standard  editions  was  prepared  with  such  care  and 
skill  as  to  entitle  it  to  special  preeminence,  yet  each  in  the 
course  of  time  gained  such  a  hold  upon  the  public  mind  that 
to  change  it  was  considered  almost  sacrilegious. 
MiU'sEdi-  It  was  not  until  the  year  1707  that  an  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament  was  published  containing  a  really  serious  attempt 
to  apply  the  materials  of  Biblical  Criticism  to  the  restoration 
of  the  original  text.  This  was  the  critical  edition  of  John 
Mill,  of  Oxford  University.  He  spent  thirty  years  in  prepar- 
ing it,  and  he  died  just  two  weeks  after  its  publication.  In 
preparing  it  he  collated  a  lai:ge  number  of  Greek  MSS.,  ver- 
sion.s,  and  ancient  quotation.s,  and  printed  in  his  notes  their  var- 
ious readings,  amounting  to  about  30,000.  He  also  discussed 
the  value  of  the  evidence  adduced,  and  pointed  out  the  cor- 
rections which  it  indicated,  but  he  printed  in  the  body  of  his 
work  the  text  of  Stephen  without  correction.  This  work  ex- 
cited alarm  and  opposition  among  the  friends  of  the  Bible,  and 
some  infidel  writers  took  advantage  of  the  facts  to  inveigh 
against  the  reliability  of  the  Scriptures  -^  but  the  final  result  of 
the  discussion  was  to  render  Christian  .scholars  more  favorable 
to   the  prosecution   of  critical  studies.     It  was  perceived  that 

'  For  a  detailed  acteount  of  the  Vnthony  Collins,  the  most  noted 
origin  and  proj.'rf'sa  of  these  divis-  infidel  writer  of  that  age.  See  Far- 
ions,  see  Sf-rivener,  Int.  fi6-H8.  rar's  HiMory  of  Free  Thought,  132- 

'  Tlje  leader  of    this  attack  was  135. 


tion,  1707 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  43 

discovering  various  roadinjr-s  was  notcroatini;  them,  but  that  it 
was  a  necessary  preparation  for  correcting  thtni.  Scrivener 
expresses  the  common  judgment  of  critics  when  he  says, 
"  Dr.  Mill's  services  to  Biblical  Criticism  surpass  in  extent 
and  value  those  rendered  by  any  other,  except  perhaps  one  or 
two  men  of  our  own  time."  ^ 

The  attack  upon  Mill's  work,  of  which  we  have  just ^''^  labors 
spoken,  having  been  made  after  his  death,  its  defense  was  taken 
up  by  Dr.  Richard  Bontloy,  one  of  the  most  accomplished 
scholars  and  brilliant  writers  of  that  age.  His  defense  of 
Mill  increased  his  own  interest  in  the  work  of  Biblical  Criti- 
cism, and  directed  the  attention  of  others  to  his  qualifications 
as  a  critic,  so  that  he  was  at  length  induced  to  attempt  the 
preparation  of  a  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament.  A 
large  amount  of  preparatory  work  was  done,  and  many  valua- 
ble contributions  were  made  to  the  development  of  the  sci- 
ence, but  other  engagements  diverted  liis  attention  to  such  a 
degree  that,  to  the  regret  of  subsequent  critics,  he  left  his 
work  incomplete.^ 

Thus  far  the  work  of  criticism  on  the  New  Testament  had^^^^^^l; 

tion  of  Ben- 
been  prosecuted  almost  exclusively   in   Great    Britain;  it  was  gel,  1734: 

now  transferred  to  Germany,  and  but  little  more  was  done  in 

England  for  about  a  century.     The  next  critical  edition  after 

Mill's  was  the  work   of  John  Albert  Bengel,  which  appeared 

in   1734,   twenty-seven  years   later.     When   Mill's  work    ap- 

•peared  Bengel  was  a  student  at  the  University  of  Tubingen, 

and   in  common  with   thousands  of  other  jiious  men   he  was 

excited  and  alarmed   by   the    multitude    of    various    readings 

which   had   been  brou;iht  to  lijjht.     He  commenced  the  colleo- 

tion  of  critical  materials  merely  to  satisfy'  his  own  mind,  but  was 

encouraged  by  others  to  complete  tlu>  work  and  give  it  to  the 

public.'    The  characteristics  of  his  edition  were  the  following: 

He  made  some  changes  in  the   Received  Text,  but  only  "'''■''*™*'* 


tcristic*. 


'  For  an  account  of  the  <Uscu8-  interesting  accounts  of  the  career 

sion  and  its  results,  sec  Tregelles,  an»l  «Titical  labors  of  Bentley. 

History  of  the  Printt'd  Ttxt,  4(V-.S7.  '    Tregelles,    lli^tury  of    Printed 

»  Both   Tregelles   (Printo.l   Te.xt  Trx/,  69. 
57-65)  and  Scrivener  (453-456)  give 


44  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

such  as  he  fomul  in  some  previous  printed  edition ;  he  printed 
the  text  in  paragraphs,  instead  of  the  detached  verses  used  by 
the  Elzevirs;  he  printed  in  the  margin  the  various  readings 
which  he  thought  worthy  of  notice,  with  signs  to  indicate  their 
relative  value;  he  gave  the  evidence  in  favor  of  a  received 
reading  as  well  as  that  against  it;  and  he  was  the  first  critic  to 
point  out  the  fact  that  MSS.  are  distributable  into  families. 
He  was  a  man  of  undoubted  piety  and  great  faith  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  Besides  his  critical  work  he  wrote  a  val- 
uable commentary  called  The  Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament,  a 
revised  edition  of  which  in  English  has  been  recently  published. 
Wetsteins         John  James  Wetstein  was  the  author  of  the  next  critical 

edition,  ,..  ii-ii  *  i  •  f>i.  i  f, 

1751-2.  edition,  published  at  Amsterdam  in  two  folio  volumes,  1751-2. 
He  was  a  native  of  Basle  in  Switzerland,  where  he  was  or- 
dained to  the  ministry  at  twenty  years  of  age.  He  had  al- 
ready become  so  enamored  with  critical  studies  that  his  ordina- 
tion sermon  was  on  the  subject  of  Various  Readings  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  "  his  zeal  for  this  fascinating  pursuit," 
says  Scrivener,  "became  at  length  with  him  a  passion,  the 
master  passion  which  consoled  and  dignified  a  roving,  troubled, 
unprosperous  life."  He  visited  both  England  and  France  in 
his  search  for  MSS.,  and  in  the  midst  of  his  labors  he  was 
deposed  from  his  "  pastorate  "  on  account  of  Unitarian  senti- 
ments. He  finally  obtained  a  Professorship  at  Amsterdam, 
where  his  work  was  C(unpleted  and  where,  two  years  later,  he 
ended  his  life.  He  was  the  first  to  employ  the  method  nowiif 
use  of  designating  uncial  MSS.  by  capital  letters,  and  the 
cursives  by  Arabic  numerals.  He  collated  102  MSS.,'  and  his 
collations  were  more  accurate  than  those  of  his  |)r('decessors. 
Scrrivencr  (•x])r('sses  the  opinion  that  in  the  critical  jxirtion  of 
his  work  he  must  Ix;  placed  "in  the  very  first  rank,  inferior  (if 
to  any)  to  but  one  or  two  of  the  highest  names. "^ 

'Scrivener,  Int.  460.  Tregollcs  sometimes  counted  separately  even 
(Printed  Text  77)  states  the  niim-  when  they  arc  parts  of  one  copy  of 
ber  at  tvrnty.  The  disrropaney  is  the;  New  Testament.  In  this  way  a 
due  to  difTerent  methods  of  count-  MS.  containing  all  w  onld  he  count- 
ing. MSS.  of  the  (ioKpels,  of  Acts,  ed  as  five  if  cited  for  everv  part,  and 
of  Paul's  p]i)istlr'S,  of  the  Catholic  yet  it  may  he  counted  as  one. 
Epistles,  and  of  the  Apocalypse,  are  '  Scrivener,  t7).  460.    To  thi^  tea- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  45 

The  next  eminent  critic  after  Wetstein  was  John  James ^''.'^'1'"*,^'' 
Griesbach,  whose  name  stood  for  many  years  at  the  head  of  edition, 
the  list  of  Biblical  critics.  His  principal  edition  appeared  in^''-^'^- 
two  volumes,  the  first  in  1796  and  the  second  in  1806.  While 
he  was  engaged  in  its  preparation  many  MSS.  hitherto  unno- 
ticed were  collated  by  other  scholars.  The  libraries  of  Russia, 
Austria,  Italy  and  Spain  were  ransacked  in  search  of  them, 
and  the  results  published  in  various  volumes  were  appropriated 
by  Griesbach.  He  also  himself  collated  quite  a  number  of 
MSS.,  versions  and  ancient  authors.  The  materials  before 
him  were  therefore  more  abundant  than  those  possessed  by  any 
previous  critic,  and  he  used  them  with  a  skill  hitherto  unpre- 
cedented. The  distinctive  purpose  of  his  edition  was  to  place 
before  his  readers  such  evidence  from  the  materials  of  criticism 
as  would  enable  the  student  of  his  work  to  decide  for  himself  on 
the  genuineness  of  any  given  reading.  He  also  carefully  laid 
down  the  principles  which  should  guide  us  in  reaching  a  de- 
cision. Following  the  suggestion  of  Bengel,  he  attempted  to 
make  a  distribution  of  MSS.  into  three  great  famifies,' which  he 
calleil  the  Alexandrian,  the  Western  and  the  Byzantine,  ac- 
cording as  he  thought  that  their  parentage  could  be  traced  to 
Alexandria,  to  Europe,  or  to  Constantinople.  This  was  the 
most  distinctive  feature  of  his  critical  theory,  and  it  is  the  one 
which  has  received  the  greatest  amount  of  adverse  criticism 
from  more  recent  critics.  He  devoted  forty  years  to  constant 
labor  in  his  chosen  field,  and  died  in  the  year  1812.' 

timonial  may  be  added  the  state-  stein,  what  that  critic  said  of  Mill, 

ment  of  Davidson  (Biblical  Criti-  that  he  accomplished   more  than 

cisin    ii.    125):     "  Notwithstanding  all  of  his  predecessors  put  together, 

the   defects    and   inaccuracies   ob-  If  this  character  be  too  high,  it  is 

servable  in  the  work,  it  is  slid  in-  but   little   more   than  the   truth" 

dispensable  to  all  who  are  occupied  (History  of  Priutrd  Text,  77). 

with    sacred    criticism  ;    and   will  '  For  a  fuller  account  of  his  ca- 

ever    remain   a  marvelous  monu-  reer  and  of  the  estimate  in  whicli 

ment  of  indomitable   energy  and  his  labors  are  held  by  later  schol- 

diligence,   uniteil  to  an  extent  of  ars,   see    the   works  of   Tregelles, 

philosophical  learning  rarely  sur-  Davidson    and    Scrivener,  already 

passed  liy  any  single  man  ;"  an<l  referred  to  so  frequently,  and  Dr. 

the  following  passage  from  Tregel-  Hort'a  Introduction, 
les:  "Bishop  Marsh  says  of  Wet- 


46  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

s?hok°  830        ^^^  edition  of  Scholz,  a  Roman  Catholic  Professor  in  the 
1836.  University  of  Bonn,  is  the  next  in  order  of  time.     It  was  the 

result  of  twelve  years'  labor  and  was  published  in  two  volumes, 
one  in  1830,  the  other  in  1836.  Scholz  is  noted  among  critics 
for  two  things  of  contrasted  merit^ — for  the  vast  number  of 
new  MSS.  which  he  brought  to  the  notice  of  scholars  (six  hun- 
dred and  sixteen)  and  in  part  collated,  and  for  the  extreme  in- 
accuracy with  which  all  his  work  was  executed.'  In  search  oi' 
MSS.  he  visited  the  old  libraries  of  France,  Italy,  Switzer- 
land, Palestine  and  the  Archipelago,  doing  much  service  in 
the  way  of  gathering  materials  for  future  critics,  but  exhibiting 
little  skill  in  using  them. 
^^^-  The  next  year  after  the  appearance  of  Scholz's  first  vol- 

mann  8  edi-  •'  ^  ^ 

tions.  1831,  ume  (1831)  Charles  Lachmaun  published  at  Berlin  a  small 
1842,1850.  Qrg^,]^  Testament,  which  was  followed  by  a  larger  edition  in 
two  volumes,  the  first  in  1842  and  the  second  in  1850.  In  the 
first  of  these  editions  he  startled  the  world  by  the  boldest  and 
most  original  adventure  yet  made  in  Biblical  Criticism.  He 
cast  aside  the  Received  Text  entirely  as  being  entitled  to  no 
authority  other  than  that  of  the  MSS.  from  which  it  was 
printed,  and  formed  a  text  from  ancient  documents  alone. 
This  appeared  sacrilegious  to  those  who  had  learned  to  regard 
the  Received  Text  almost  with  the  reverence  due  to  the  apostolic 
autographs,  and  it  aroused  against  its  author  a  stonii  of  denun- 
ciation. But  true  critics  at  once  accepted  the  j)rinciple  in- 
volved as  correct,  and  from  that  time  all  prescrij)tive  claims 
set  uj)  for  the  Received  Text  have  been  disregarded.^     Another 

'  "It  is  our  duty,"  says  Scriven-  and  thus  though  he  maintained  a 

er,  "to  express  our  sorrow  that  truer  system  of  families  tlian  Gries- 

twelve  years  and  more  of  hard  and  hach  did,  yet  his  results  are  even 

persevering    toil    should,   throuj^h  less  satisfactory,   because    he   ap- 

mere  heedlessness,  have  ))een  near-  j>lii'd  a  theory  to  the  classification 

ly  thrown  away  "  f7n^/-o(/ur//o*(, 475).  of  authorities  by  which   their   re- 

"II is  collatiftns   have  been  luisty  spective  value  was ;»«/.s<7v/Twrsrt/" 

and    superficial.      They   are  often  (Tregelles,  History  of  Printed  Text, 

incorrect"  (Davidson,  Jilb.  C'rit.  ii.  97). 

137).     "  If    Schol/'   text    is    com-  ''  The  following  remarks  of  Tre- 

pared  with   that  of  Griesbach,  it  gelles  on  this  8u]>jt*ct  are  worthy  ot 

will  be  seen  that  it  is  a  retrograde  notice  even  at  the  j^rcsent  day  ))y 

Btej)  in  the  ai)j)lication  of  criticism;  persons  who  are  but  partially  in- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  47 

distinctive  feature  of  Lachmann's  work  was  not  so  well  received 
by  critics.  His  aim  was  to  reproduce,  not  necessarily  the  true 
text,  but  the  text  as  it  existed  in  the  fourth  century.  He  used 
only  such  documents  as  he  thought  necessary  to  this  result,  and 
where  they  united  in  an  unquestionable  error,  he  printed  this 
error,  because  it  was  a  part  of  the  text  which  he  was  aiming  to 
reproduce.  Subsecpient  critics  agree  in  the  opinion  thiit  the 
documents  which  he  used  were  insufficient  even  for  the  pur- 
pose which  he  had  in  view,'  and  many  have  condemned  the 
purpose  itself,  because  they  have  understood  him  as  aiming  at 
a  restoration  of  the  true  tcxt.^  After  all  that  can  be  said 
against  it  "  still  the  fact  will  remain,"  says  Tregelles,  "  that  the 
first  Greek  Testament  since  the  invention  of  printing,  edited 
wholly  on  ancient  authority  irrespective  of  modern  tradition, 
is  due  to  Charles  Lachmann."  Like  so  many  of  his  fellow- 
laborers  he  ended  his  critical  labors  with  his  life.  He  died  in 
1851,  the  year  following  the  completion  of  his  second  edition. 

The  name  of  Constantine  Tischeudorf  stands  next  in  the  list  Tischcn- 
of  great  Biblical  critics,  and  it  was  the  first  to  tower  above  thatjj^,,,,"  ,^i. 
of  Griesbach.     He  j)ublished  eigiit  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa-  "- 
mont,  of  which  the  first  appeared  in  1841,  and  the  eighth  was 
cDiiipleted  in  1872.     On  this  last  edition,  which  was  published 
in  parts,  from   1865  to  1872,  his  fame  as  a  critic  chiefly  rests, 

formed  on  the  subject  of  Biblical  some  subjective  notion  in  our  own 

criticism,  and  who  are  prejudiced  minds  of  what  is  true  and  right — a 

against  what  they  style  changes  in  notion   that   has  no    better    basis 

the  text :"  It  is  in  vain  to  call  such  than     recent,    ill-grounded    tradi- 

a  labor  '  wholesale  innovation,*  or  tion." 

lo  say  that  it  manifests  '  want  of  '  Tregelles,  his  greatest  admirer 

reverence  for  Holy  Scripture  ;'  for  and  zealous  defender,  says  on  this 

it  is  not  innovation  to  revert  to  the  point:    "  A  wider  scope  of  ancient 

first  sources ;  it  is  not  irreverence  for  evidence  should  have  been  taken  " 

God's  word  to  give  it  forth  on  the  {lb.  100). 

best  and  most  attested  basis.     It  is  '  Davidson,  after  stating   Lach- 

not  can^eW/n(7  words  and  sentences,  mann's  real  purpose,  says:    "Had 

when   they   are    not    inserted    be-  this,  his   true   purpose,  been    per- 

rause  the  oldest  and  best  authori-  ceived,  it  would  liave  saved  a  great 

ties  know  nothing  of  them.     Hon-  deal   of    misapprehension    on   the 

est  criticism  has  to  do  with  f<iet»  ns  part  of  his  censors,  who  have  writ- 

theij  are,  with  evidence  as   it   has  ten    against    him     through     igno- 

been    transmitted,  and    not  with  ranee  "(/?/').  ^V(7.,  ii.  141). 


fJis  other 
.abors. 


48  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

and  of  it  Scrivener  remarks:  "This  is  beyond  question  the 
most  full  and  comprehensive  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
existing;  it  contains  the  results  of  the  latest  collations  and  dis- 
coveries, and  as  copious  a  body  of  various  readings  as  is  com- 
patible with  the  design  of  adapting  it  for  general  use."^  But 
while  thus  extolling  the  edition  as  a  whole,  the  same  author 
speaks  unfavorably  of  Tischendorf's  stability  of  judgment,  and 
shows  that  he  paid  too  much  deference  to  the  authority  of  the 
Sinaitic  MS.,  of  which  he  was  the  discoverer.^ 

Tischendorf's  fame  rests  not  merely  on  the  number  and 
value  of  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  which,  he  edited, 
but  also  and  perhaps  chiefly  on  the  large  number  of  valuabk' 
manuscripts  which  he  caused  to  be  carefully  printed,  thus  re- 
lieving scholars  who  wished  to  examine  them  of  the  necessity 
of  visiting  the  libraries  in  which  they  were  kept.^ 
His  career.  The  carccr  of  this  great  critic,  from  the  time  that  he  com- 
menced his  critical  labors  until  he  attained  world-wide  celebrity, 
has  been  candidly  related  by  himself*  It  possesses  all  the  in- 
terest of  a  romance,  and  it  is  full  of  encouragement  to  young  men, 
who,  under  the  crushing  weight  of  extreme  poverty,  aspire  to  a 
life  of  eminent  usefulness.  He  resolved,  in  1839,  to  devote 
his  life  to  the  textual  study  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  at- 
tempt, by  using  all  the  acquisitions  of  his  predecessors,  to  re- 

'  Introduction,  481.  (he  reputation  of  Titsclicndorf  as  a 

^"The  evidence  of  Cocle.r  t<,  sup-  Biblical   scholar   rests  less  on   his 

ported  or  even  unsupported  by  one  critical  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 

or  two  authorities  of  any  descrip-  ment    than   on    the    texts   of    the 

tion,  proved    with    him    sufficient  chief  uncial  authorities  which   in 

to  outwei^'h    all    other   witnesses,  rapid   succession  he  has  given   to 

whether  manuscripts,  versions,  or  the  world"  (//>.  4S:5). 
ecclesiastical    writers"    {Int.    520).        ■•  The  narrative  was  i>Mblis1ie(l  in 

"Th(!  result  of  this  excessive  and  Germany  in  18()4,  and  a  translation 

irrational  deference  to  one  of  our  of  it  into  Knglish  was  published  by 

chief  codices,   that  which   he  was  the  London  Tract  Society  in  186(5, 

so   fortunate  a.s  to   bring  to  light  followed  by  a  reprint  of  the  Anieri- 

twenty-five     years     ago,     appears  can  Tract  Society,  in  the  same  year, 

plainly    in     Tischendorf's     eighth  The  little  volume  bears  the  rather 

edition    of     tlie    New    Testament,  cumbrous    title:    "When    were    our 

'i'liat   great  c-ritic   had    never  ]»een  (lnHjich    Writim:    An    Anjumrnl    by 

•  •(inspicuons   for  stability   of   jndg-  ('(iristavlinr  TuchnKlorf,  v:Uh  a  Nar- 

ment"  {ib.  528).  rative  of  the  Discovery  of  the  Sinintic 

'"It  maybe  truly  asserted  that  Manuscript." 


m:\\  testament  TKX'i'.  4& 

construct  the  exact  text  which  came  i'rom  the  liands  of  the 
sacred  writers.  After  publishing-  his  first  edition  (1841)  lie 
was  couviuced  that  to  accomplish  his  purpose  it  would  be 
necessary  ior  him  to  examine  the  original  documents  lor  him- 
self, and  to  give  them  a  closer  scrutiny  than  they  had  yet  re- 
ceived. But  this  required  a  protracted  and  expensive  tour  to 
foreign  lands,  and  money  he  had  none.  He  applied  to  his 
Government  (that  of  Saxony)  and  obtained  a  grant  of  one 
hundred  dollars  a  year  for  two  years.  With  this  meager 
siun,  insuHicient  to  allow  the  purchase  of  an  extra  suit  of 
clothing,  he  started  on  a  literary  tour  wliich  was  destined  to 
occupy  four  years.  He  spent  two  years  in  Pari«,  and  thence 
went  successively  to  Holland,  England,  Italy,  Egypt,  the 
Libyan  Desert,  Mt.  Sinai,  Palestine,  Smyrna,  the  isle  of 
Patmos,  Constantinople  and  Athens,  everywhere  searching 
ihrough  collections  of  ancient  manuscripts  and  collating  many 
<>{'  them.  The  journey  and  his  purchases  cost  him  about  five 
thousand  dollars,  which  came  to  him  through  the  use  of  his 
pen,  and  through  the  gifts  of  persons  who  became  interested 
in  his  work,  thus  verifying  the  conviction  with  which  he  set 
out,  that  "  God  helps  those  who  help  themselves,  and  that 
which  is  right  must  prosper."  His  labors  on  this  tour  were 
full  of  important  results,  one  of  the  most  important  of  which 
was  the  restoration,  by  chemical  applications,  of  the  faded 
manuscript  C,  at  Paris,  and  the  printing  of  its  text.  While 
visiting  the  convent  of  St.  Catharine,  in  1844,  he  saw  a  basket 
of  old  parchment  leaves,  which  the  monks  had  set  aside  to  be 
burned  as  worthless,  and  to  his  great  delight  he  detected 
among  them  some  sheets  of  a  very  ancient  copy  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  Greek.  He  obtained  about  forty-five  of  the 
leaves  without  difficulty,  but  the  ignorant  monks  inferred 
from  his  lively  satisfaction  that  they  must  be  of  great  value, 
and  they  refused  to  let  him  have  more.  These  were  ptibli.shed 
when  he  returned  home,  and  their  great  antiquity  was  so  clearly 
demonstrated  that  he  resolved  to  leave  no  effort  untried  to  ob- 
tain the  whole  volume  to  which  they  belonged.  In  1853,  nine 
years  later,  he  was  at  the  convent  again,  but.  he  could  find  no 
trace  of  the  coveted  treasure.      In  IH")!)  he  went  auain.  backed 


50  INTEGEITY  OF  THE 

this  time  by  commendations  from  the  Czar  of  Russia,  and  sup- 
ported by  his  money.  After  searching  in  vain  for  a  few  days, 
and  almost  despairing  of  success,  he  found  the  whole  of  the 
precious  document  in  the  hands  of  the  steward  of  the  convent. 
It  proved  to  be  the  Sinaitic  manuscript  of  the  whole  Bible  in 
Greek  which  we  have  described  in  Cha})ter  IV.  It  was  with 
tlie  utmost  difficulty,  after  bringing  to  bear  the  influence  of 
higli  officials  in  the  Greek  church,  and  making  several  jour- 
neys back  and  forth,  that  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  permission 
to  carry  it  to  Cairo  and  copy  it.  Hp  copied  its  "  one  hundred 
and  ten  thousand  lines,  many  of  which  were  so  faded  as  to  be 
almost  illegible,  in  the  nu)nths  of  March,  April  and  May,  when 
the  thermometer  was  never  below  77°  in  the  shade.  He  finally 
succeeded  in  ol>taining  the  manuscript  itself  for  the  imperial 
lihrary  at  St.  Petersburg,  and  on  the  19th  of  November,  1859, 
he  proudly  laid  it  at  the  feet  of  Alexander  11.,  in  his  winter 
palace.  By  the  munificence  of  his  imperial  [)atron  he  was  also 
furnished  with  the  funds  necessary  to  make  a  large  number  of 
fac  simile  copies  in  four  volumes  each,  which  were  distributed 
gratuitously  among  the  more  noted  libraries  of  Europe  and 
America.  This  task  was  completed  in  1862,  but  Tisehcndorf 
afterward  published  the  New  Testament  part  of  the  manu- 
script in  ordinary  type,  with  critical  notes  which  exhibit  its 
variations  from  the  Elzevir  text  and  from  Codex  B. 

The  surprising  and  gratifying  results  of  his  life-long  in- 
dustry secured  tt>  Tischendorf  from  time  to  time  the  most  flat- 
tering encomiums  from  learned  men,  University  Faculties,  and 
crowned  heads  in  every  part  of  Europe,  but  he  concludes  his 
narrative  by  saying:  "That  which  I  think  more  highly  of 
than  all  these  flattering  distinctions  is,  the  conviction  that 
providence  has  given  to  our  age,  in  which  attacks  on  (Chris- 
tianity are  so  common,  the  Sinaitic  Bible,  to  be  to  us  a  full 
and  clear  light  as  to  what  is  the  word  written  of  God,  and  to 
assist  us  in  defending  the  truth  by  establishing  its  authentic 
form."  After  thirty-four  years  t»f  unrenntting  and  exiiausting 
labor  in  his  chosen  field,  his  strong  frame  was  prostrated  by  a 
stroke  of  paralysis  in  1873;  his  work  was  thus  brought  sud- 
denlv  to  an  end,  and   his  useful   life  closed  on   the  7th  of  De- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT.  Ul 

cembiT,    1874,    when    lie    liad    iicaily   cinnpleted    his    sixtieth 
year. 

Th(.ii.rh      Kil)lieal     Criticism,     which     had     its     hirtii     in  k*:"^^*!  of 
Great    Britain,  as    we     have  seen,  soon    afterward    lett    her  England, 
shores,  after  an   absence  of  more    than  a    luindred  years   it 
returned,  and   English  critics,  with   the  ck^arness  of  thought 
and    even    balance  of  judgment  which  characterize  their  race, 
seem  destined  to  the  high  honor  of  bringing  it  to  perfection. 
AVhile  Ti.scheiulorf  was  pro.socuting   his  Herculean  labors 
on  the  continent,  S.  P.  Tregelle.s,   his  only  rival  as  a  critic,  hisTREOELLEs: 
friend   and  correspondent,  was  quietly  toiling  at  the  same  task 
in  England.     Born  in  Ealmoutli  of  Quaker  parentage  in  1813, 
just  two  years  before  the  birth  of  Tischentlorf,  at  an  early  age 
he  joined  the  body  called  Plymouth  Brethren,  with  whom  he 
was  connected  the  greater  part  of  his  life.     In  1838,  when  he 
was  only  twenty-five  years  of  age,  \u\  published  a  specimen 
page  of  a  proposed  Critical  Greek  Testament,  the  plan  of  which  P'auof  his 
had  been   formed  as  a  result  of  several  years  of  study  under- 
taken at  first  for  his  own  satisfaction.     The  distinctive  feature 
of  the  plan,  much  like  that  of  Lachmann's,  of  whose  edition  he 
then  knew  nothing,  was  the  formation  of  a  text  based  exclu- 
sively on  ancient  manu.scripts,  but  allowing  ancient  versions  a 
determining  voice   in   regard  to   clauses  and  longer  passages.' 
He  afterward  modified  his  plan  so  as  to  admit  the  testimony 
of  ancient  versions  without  limitation,  and  to  include  also  the 
evidence  of  ([notations  made  during  the  first  three  and  a  half 
centuries.^     In  1844  he  ])ubli,shed  the  first  fruits  of  his  labors 
in  the  form  of  a  corrected  text  of  the  Apocalypse,  accompanied  "'""■"st 
by  an  English  translatiou.      In  further  prosecution  of  his  stud- and  sub»e- 

'  There    liail    arist'ii    hofore    my    insertion  or  noii-in.si'ition  of  clauses, 
niind    a    ])lan    for   a    Greek    New    rfr.;  letting  the  order  of  words,  «7('., 
Testiuuent,   in    which    it   was   pro-    rest  wholly  on  MSS. ; 
posed,—  :;d,  To  give   the  Autliorities   for 

1st,  To  form  a  text  on  the  an-  tiie  text,  and  for  the  various  read- 
thority  of  ancient  copies,  without  ings,  clearly  and  aet-urately,  so  that 
allowing  the  "received  text"  any  the  reader  niiglit  at  once  see  what 
prescriptive  right;  rests  on  ancient  evidence  (vlccot//// 

L'nd,  To  give  to  the  ancient  ver-    of  I'rinUd  Test,  15'J,  l."):J). 
sions  a  determining  voice  as  to  the       ''  lb.  173. 


52  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

quentia-     j^g^  ^p  fouiid  it  uGcessary  in  order  to  settle  points  of  difference 

bors.  1   •  1  1  1  •  '    '  o 

among  his  predecessors,  and  to  gii;ird  iigainst  repetition  oi  any 
of  their  mistakes,  to  recollate  all  the  MSS.  and  versions  on 
whose  authority  he  proposed  to  rely.  For  this  jnirpose  lie  vis- 
ited the  principal  libraries  of  Europe,  conversed  much  with 
Lachmann,  and  compared  notes  with  Tischendorf  After  more 
than  twenty  years  of  such  toil,  he  published  Part  First  of  his 
work,  containing  Matthew  and  Mark,  in  1857,  and  Part  Sec- 
ond containing  Luke  and  John,  in  1861.  In  neither  of  these 
parts  had  he  the  opportunity  of  using  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  which, 
though  found  in  1859,  had  not  yet  been  published.  The  re- 
mainder of  the  New  Testament  was  brought  out  in  three  other 
parts  from  1865  to  1870.  Part  Fifth  was  published  for  him  by 
other  editors,  who  sadly  state  in  their  Introduction,  that  in  the 
early  part  of  that  year  while  Dr.  Tregelles  was  in  the  act  of 
revising  the  concluding  chapters  of  Revelation,  he  was  visited 
by  a  second  and  very  severe  stroke  of  paralysis,  which,  though 
it  left  his  intellect  unclouded,  disabled  him  from  a  further 
prosecution  of  his  work.'  Thus  did  another  great  Biblical 
critic  })av  the  oft-inflicted  penalty  of  an  overtaxed  brain,  and 
cease  from  labor  when  the  noon  of  life  had  little  more  than 
passed.  His  assistant  editors  bear  witness  to  his  faith  and 
His  faiU)  pietv  in  these  words:  "  For  many  long  years  he  has  reverenced 
an  piet\.  ^^^^  Scripturcs  as  being  veritably  the  word  of  God.  His 
prayer  has  been  that  he  might  be  the  means  of  j)rotecting  it 
from  th(!  consequences  of  human  carelessness,  and  presenting 
it  a.s  nearly  as  possible  in  that  form  in  which  it  was  first  given 
us  by  God."-  His  personal  friend.  Dr.  Scrivener,  who  always 
refers  to  him  in  terms  of  tender  regard,  says  that  he  met  with 
much  dis(|uietude  and  some  mild  persecution  among  the  Ply- 
mouth lirethrcn,  and  adds  :  "  His  last  years  were  more  ijap})ily 
spent  as  a  humble  lay  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  a 
fiiet  he  very  earnestly  begged  me  to  keep  in  mind."^  He  lin- 
gered in  hel|)le.ssness  for  several  years,  and  died  at  I'lyniouth 
April  'I\,  1H75. 
VHiucofhis        The  princi|tlrs  bv  which  Tregelles  was  guided   in  fi)rniing 

labors. 

'  Advertiaenu'iit  lo  I'ait  Fifth,  1.       ^  Tiilr()<liutiiiii,4H7. 
^  Ib.,2. 


SKW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 


58 


his  text  are  regarded  by  other  crities  as  defective,  on  the  ground 
that  thev  exchide  the  use  of  nearly  all  the  cursive  MS.S.  He 
allowed  only  such  of  these  to  be  heard  as  can  be  proved  to 
have  been  copied  from  ancient  uncials,  while  it  is  held  by  the 
objectors  that  all  the  witnesses  should  be  heard,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  each  taken  at  its  proper  valuation.'  But  it  is  con- 
ceded on  all  hands  that  he  performed  the  tedious  work  of  col- 
lation with  more  accuracy  than  did  any  of  his  predecessors, 
and  that  the  text  which  he  produced  was  the  nearest  approach 
yet  made  to  the  identical  words  of  the  sacred  writers." 

In  the  spring  of  1853,  when  Lachmann's  text  and  Tiseh- 
endorfs  second  edition  had  but  recently  ajjpeared,  two  Pro- 
fessors at  Cambridge,  B.  F.  Westcott  and  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  un- 
dertook the  preparation  of  a  manual  ivxt  for  their  own  use, 
'*  hoping  at  the  same  time  that  it  might  be  of  use  to  others." 
For  twenty-eight  years  their  labors  were  continued  with  some 
delays  and  interruptions  occasioned  by  other  occupations,  and 
their  edition  was  not  published  till    May,  1881.     It  bears  the 


Thocflition 
of  SVi'sicott 
and  Uort, 

1.S81 


'  "Tregelles'  'ancient  authorities' 
are  tlius  reduced  to  ttioso  manu- 
scripts whicli,  not  being  Lection- 
aries,  happen  to  be  written  in  un- 
cial characters,  with  the  remarka- 
ble exception  of  Codd.,  1,  33,  69  of 
the  Gospels,  and  61  of  the  Acts, 
which  he  admits  because  they  pre- 
serve an  '  ancient  text.'  We  shall 
hereafter  inquire  (Ch.  vii.)  whether 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  can 
safely  be  grounded  on  a  basis  so 
narrow  as  that,  of  Tregelles  "  (Scriv- 
ener, Int.,  4S5).  In  Chap,  vii.,  as 
promised,  the  question  is  discussed 
elaborately. 

2  "Having  followed  Tregelles 
through  the  whole  of  Cod.  6!),  I 
am  able  to  speak  positively  of  his 
8crui)ulous  exactne.ss;  and  in 
reganl  to  other  manuscripts  now 
in  England  it  will  be  found  that 
where  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles 
difTer,  the  latter  is  seldom   in  the 


wrong"  (Scrivener,  Int.  486). 

"  We  beliQ,ve  that  his  accuracy 
in  making  collations  an<l  faithfully 
recording  them  is  superior  to  that 
evinced  by  any  of  the  great  edit- 
ors, Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach, 
Lachmann  or  Tischendorf  "(David- 
son, Bib.  Cril.  ii.  146). 

"  Of  the  services  of  Tischendorf 
in  collecting  and  i)ublishing  ma- 
terials it  is  impossible  to  speak  too 
highly,  l)ut  his  actual  text  is  the 
least  important  and  least  satisfac- 
tory part  of  his  work.  Dr.  Tregel- 
les, to  whom  we  owe  the  best  re- 
cension of  the  Gospels,  has  not  yet 
reachetl  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul" 
(.1.  B.  Lightfoot,  Virfuce  to  Commen- 
turn  on  Galitliiing,  iii).  This  testi- 
monial from  one  of  the  ripest  of 
living  scholars  was  written  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1S65,  when  Tarts  First  and 
Second  of  Tregelles'  Edition  were 
all  that  had  been  published. 


54  INTEGRITY  OF  THE 

title,  "The  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek  ;"  and  in 
harmony  with  the  title  the  first  sentence  of  the  Introdnction 
reads  as  follows:  "  This  edition  is  an  attempt  to  present  ex- 
actly tlu!  original  words  of  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  they 
can  now  be  determined  from  surviving  documents."  The  two 
editors  worked  independently,  hut  compared  their  results  from 
time  to  time,  and  discussed  their  diiferences.  Such  differences 
as  they  could  not  adjust  they  have  indicated  on  the  margin. 
As  a  reason  for  this  procedure  they  say  :  "  This  combination  of 
completely  independent  operations  permits  us  to  place  far  more 
confidence  in  the  results  than  either  of  us  could  have  presumed 
t(»  cherish  had  they  rested  on  Ins  own  sole  responsibility."  ' 
And  it  may  l)c  added  that  it  permits  the  student  nlso  to  receive 
tliem  with  a  proportionate  degree  of  confidence.  The  text 
was  published  in  one  volume,  and  the  Introduction  and  A])- 
j)endix  shortly  afterward  in  another.  Both  were  promj)tly  re- 
published in  America  by  Harper  &  Brothers. 

These  editors  made  no  attem})t  at  a  general  (collation  of 
manuscripts,  though  they  have  done  some  valuable  work  in 
this  department.  Their  work  is  distinguishetl  by  a  more  care- 
ful research  into- the  genealogy  of  documents  than  has  been 
attempted  hitherto,  and  by  a  conscipicnt  more  discriminating 
judgment  as  to  the  weight  of  evidence  which  should  l)e  at- 
tached to  each.  Tiiey  are  accused  of  ascribing  too  much  au- 
thority to  Codex  B,  and  their  views  in  some  other  particidars 
are  called  in  question,  but  Dr.  Scrivener,  who  urges  these  ob- 
jections, bears  hearty  testimony  to  the  general  value  of  their 
work,  and  says  of  the  Introduction  that  it  is  "  a  very  model  of 
earnest  reasoning,  calling  fi)r  and  ritddy  rewarding  the  close 
and  repeated  study  of  all  who  would  learn  the  utmost  that  can 
be  done  for  settling  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  on  dogmatic; 
prin(!i]des.  "^  In  their  text  they  depart  more  widely  fi-om  the 
received  text  than  any  j)revious  editors  have  thought  allowable, 
and  some  of  the  most  inipoi-taut  (dianges  which  they  have 
made  are  contested,      "^fhe  (|iialilieatiuns  of  the  two  editors  for 

'    New    Testament    in     ()ii;;iii;il    tlie  entire  cluipter  on  RerenI  Views 
Greek,  Introdurtion,  HI.  2(»,  L'l.        of  Cuiiiparative  (Jriticiain. 
*  Iiitroiluclion,  o30,  ^  1."),  anil  see 


NKW  Tf:STAMK\T  TEXT.  55 

their  task  are  of  the  highest  order.  They  are  pronounced  by 
Scrivener  "  two  of"  our  best  living  .scholars."  '  Dr.  We.st€ott 
is  best  known  in  America  by  his  Introduction  to  the  Four 
Gospels,  his  admirable  work  on  the  New  Testament  Canon, 
and  his  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  j)art  of  The  Bible 
Commentary. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  sum  up  briefly  the  results  thus  far  The  results 
attained  by  the  labors  of  Biblical  critics.  We  have  mentioned 
only  those  critics  who  have  prepared  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  omitting  many  who  have  made  invaluable  contribu- 
tions in  tlie  way  of  collating  particular  manuscripts,  editing 
portions  of  the  text,  and  taking  ])art  in  the  discussion  of  the 
facts  and  princij)les  involved  ;  but  we  have  mentioned  enough 
to  show  in  a  general  way  how  the  results  have  been  attained 
which  we  mentioned  in  Chapter  Second.  Besides  demonstrat- 
ing that  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  so  well  pre- 
served that  only  in  one  place  in  a  thousand,  and  that  a  place 
on  whichwe  can  i)ut  our  finger,  is  there  any  doubt  as  to  the 
original  reading,  we  are  able  to  name  the  following  results 
which  have  been  placed  within  the  reach  of  all  : 

1.  The   "Revised   Version"   of  the   English   New  Testa- '*'*' '*^'^«<' 
ment  puts  into  the  hands  of  all    who  read   the   English  Ian- merit. ** 
guage,  the  maturest  results  of  Biblical  Criticism  in  an  English 

dress.  Its  text,  where  there  are  no  references  made  to  differ- 
ent readings,  represents  the  settled  Greek  text  that  is  known  to 
have  been  composed  by  the  sacred  writers,  while  the  marginal 
readings  jwint  out  all  the  words  in  reference  to  which  there  is 
any  difference  worthy  ot  notice  among  ancient  doenments. 
Not  only  so,  but  the  relative  degree  of  probability  in  favor  of 
the  reading  adopted  in  the  text  is  approximately  indicated,  so 
that  the  least  educat(>(l  English  reader  can  see  for  himself  the 
broad  ground  of  certainty  and  the  narrow  ground  of  doubt. 

2.  The  Revisers,  who  were  selected  from  among  the  most  *  restored 
eminent  scholars   in  Great   Britain    and    America,  had    before °'**'' ^*^'' 
them  all  the  critical  editions  which  have  been  mentioned  above, 
including  advanced  sheets  of  Wcstcott  &  Hort's  text,  and  where 

these    differ    they     made    an    intelligent  choice   of    readings. 

'  Ih.  488. 


56  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT. 

The  Greek  Avhich  thev  followed  in  translating  has  been  pub- 
lished by  Dr.  E.  Palmer,  of  Oxford,  and  also  by  Dr.  Scrivener, 
thus  placing  in  the  reach  of  every  one  who  can  read  the  Greek 
Testament  a  far  purer  text  than  has  been  seen  by  any  previous 
generation  since  the  sacred  autographs  disappeared. 

3.  The  materials  for  criticism  which  have  been  collected 
bv  the  diligence  of  the  noble  men  whom  we  have  mentioned 
are  now  so  ample,  and  the  number  of  thoroughly  accomplished 
critics  yet  engaged  in  the  work  so  great,  that  we  have  every 
reason  to  expect  a  speedy  consummation  of  their  hopes  in  a 
restoration  of  the  original  text  which  shall  a|>proach  very 
nearly  to  perfection.  Then  the  science  ot  Biblical  Criticism, 
having  finished  her  task,  may  lay  aside  the  implements  of  her 
toil  and  rest  under  the  benediction,  well  done  ! 


PAUT  II. 

GENUIi^lSrESS  OF  THE  NKW  TESTAMEI^T 

BOOKS. 


PART  II. 

GE:NrUIKEIi5'ESS  OF  THE  ISTEW  TESTAMENT 

BOOKS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  CATALOGUES. 


Having  discussed  in  Part  First  the  history  and  present  The  present 

condition  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  we  now  inquire  "**  ^^' 

whether   its  books  can  be  severally  traced  back  to  the  writers 

whose  names  they  bear.     In  order  to  begin,  as  in  Part  First,  i is  starting 

with  admitted  facts,  we  make  the  date  of  the  oldest  existing 

copy   of  the    Greek    New    Testament    the   starting-point   of 

the    present    inquiry.     It    is  an    axiomatic    proposition    that 

every    book    is    as    old    as    its    oldest    existing    copy ;    but 

the    acknowledged    date,    as    we    have   before    stated    (page 

30),  of  the  Sinaitie  Manuscript,  the  oldest  complete  coi)y  of 

the  New  Testament  now  in  existence,  is  the  first  lialf  of  the 

fourth  century  ;  and  consequently  all  of  the  books  in  (piestion 

were  certainly  in  existence  at   that  date.     This  conclusion  is """^ ''^^'™' 

.  .  .  Its. 

universally  admitted,  and    the    task  before  us  is  to  trac^e  these 

books  back  through  the  two  and  a  half  centuries  which  lie  be- 
tween that  date  and  llu;  age  of  their  reputed  authors. 

Our   first  evidence  is   that  ol'  catalogues.      It"  the  inquiry 


60  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

Force  of  ev-  \^Qf\  reference  to  Shakcspearo's  plays,  and  we  slioukl  find  in  a 

dence  from  ,  .  ,  ,^,,,^         i-      *    /•     i  •  j-  ^ 

catalogues,  document  written  a.  d.  IbOO,  a  list  ot  tlioni  as  existing  works, 
we  would  knoAV  from  this  that  they  were  written  at  least  that 
early.  Now  it  so  happens  that  writings  of  ancient  authors 
iiave  come  down  to  us  which  contain  lists  or  catalogues  of  such 
books  both  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  as  were  known 
and  used  in  their  day.  These  catalogues  furnish  demonstrative 
proof  that  the  books  wiiich  they  mention  were  already  in  ex- 
istence. 
Catalogues  Some  of  the.se  catalogues  are  found  in  the  acts  of  various 
Councils,  ecclesiastical  assemblies,  which,  like  the  assemblies  that  drew 
up  the  creeds  of  the  several  Protestant  churches,  set  forth  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  which  they  regarded 
Council  OF  f^^  the  true  word  of  God.  The  earliest  of  these  assemblies  in 
A.  D. 397:  whose  acts  such  a  catalogue  is  found,  is  the  CounciL  of  Car- 
tilage, which  met  A.  D.  397.'  Jt  was  c(jmposed  of  tlie  Bishops 
of  Africa,  representing  all  the  churches  in  the  Roman  province 
of  that  name.  The  rule  adopted  on  the  suhjcct  begins  with 
these  words :  "  It  was  also  determined,  that  beside  the  canoni- 
cal ^  Scriptures  nothing  be  read  in  the  churches  under  the  title 
itscuta-  Qf  (]iyine  Scriptures."  It  names  all  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  including  all  in  our  present  Bible  and  some  of 
those  in  the  Apocrypha,  and  then  gives  the  New  Testament 
books  in  the  foIl<»wing  order:  "Four  books  of  the  Gospels, 
one  book  of  Acts  of  Apostles,  thirteen  Ki)istles  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  one  of  the  same  to  the  Hebrews,  two  Kpi.stles  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  three  of  John,  one  of  James,  one  of  Juda.s,  one 

'  The  Council  of  Laodicca,  wliicli  in  use  anions  the  (ireok  writers  of 

met  A.  D.  3G3,  is  commonly  quoted  the  early  church.     Applied  (o  the 

as    liavinp  made  a  catalogue,  but  Scrii)tures,  it  rejiresents   them  a.s 

there  are  good  grounds  for  believ-  the  rulf  of  laith  and  i)racti(!e.     The 

ing  that  the  catalogue  appended  to  Canon  is  the  whole  JMhle,  and  a 

the  report  of  its  proceedings  was  book  is  said  to  l)e  canonical  when 

added  at  a   later  date.     The  evi-  it  is  entitled   to  a  place   in   this 

<lence  is  given  by  Westcott,  Canon  Canon.   The  term  was  also  appliec^ 

of  Nt'w  TeHlamrnt,  42H-i:',2.  to   the   various   rules  adopted    \>y 

''' The  word   cnnon   is  the  Greek  councils.     For  a  full  account  of  its 

word  Kuvi'jv  anglicized,  and   means  use,  see  Appendix  A  to  Westcott's 

a  rule.     I'anl  employs  the  original  Cunon  of  New  Testament. 
term  in<ial.  vi.  111  and  it  cnntiinicd 


NEW  THSTAMKNT  1500KS.  61 

book  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Juliii."  It  conelndcs  :  "  We  have 
received  from  our  fatlier-s  that  the.sc  are  t<»  he  read  in  th(; 
churches." ' 

This  document  shows  not  oidv  that  all  <»f  the  hooks  of  our  ^'""'"^ "' ''« 

TkT         rn  •       *    •  1  •  !•     •       evidence. 

present  New  iestament  were  in  existence  and  in  use  as  "  divine 
iScriptures  "  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  hul  that  they 
had  been  held  in  the  same  esteem  by  the  "  fathers"  of  the  ven- 
erable men  who  composed  this  assembly.  These  "  fathers  " 
must  have  lived  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
the  books  had  then  been  in  use  so  h>n<^  as  to  be  regarded  by 
them  as  having  proceeded  from  the  Apostles.  This  testimony 
pushes  the  history  of  the  books  back  to  at  least  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century — farther  l)aek  than  the  date  of  the  oldest 
existing  copy  of  tliem. 

The  next  catalogue  ^vhich  we  cite  is  from  the  pen  of   Atha-AxnANA- 
nasius,  who  was  Bishop  of  Alexandria  from  .'V26  to  .')7'>  a.  d., 
and  one  of  the  most  noted  Greek  writers  of  the  fourth  century. 
In  an  epistle  addressed  to  the  disciples  under  his  oversight,  he 
gives,  for  the  purj)ose  of  guarding  "some  few  of  the  weaker 
sort"  from  being  deceived  by    aj)Ocryphal  books,  a  list  of  thehiseat.i- 
truc  books  <»f  the  whole  Bible,  those  of  the  New  Testament 
being   the   same  that  we  now  receive.     He  declares  that  these 
books  had  been  "delivered  to  the  fathers"  by  those  who  were  his  tistim.v 
"  eve-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word,"  and  that  h(>  liad  "^  ""''. 

^  reasoning. 

learned  this  "  from  the  beginning."  He  appends  to  his  list 
this  warning:  "These  are  the  fountains  of  salvation,  that  he 
who  thirsts  may  be  satisfied  with  the  oracles  contained  in  them  : 
in  these  alone  the  doctrine  of  religion  is  taught :  let  no  on(>add 
to  them  or  take  anything  from  theui."  -     This  testimony  sets 

'  For  th(^  original    Latin  text  of  as  (lea<l  persons,  ami  of  ourselves 

tliis  catalogne,  see  Wcstcntt  on  the  as  liaving  the  divine  Scriptures  for 

Canon,   r.38,   or   Cliartoris,   Canon-  salvation;  ami   I  fear  lest,  as  Paul 

icity,  18  ;  and  for  an  English  trans-  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  some  few 

lation  of   it,   see    Lanlner's  Creili-  of   the  weaker   sort  shouM   he  se- 

bility,  V.  78.  dnced    from    their  simplieitv   and 

'The  Greek  text  of  the  extract  is  jmrity  by  the  cunning  and  crafti- 

piven  by  Westcott  (C"nnn,  546)  and  ness  of  some  men,  and  at  length  bo 

by  Charteris,  13,  and  the  following  induced  to  make  use  of  other  books 

is  Lardner's  translation  of  it :"  Rut  called  apocryphal,  being  deceived 

since  we  have  spoken  of  heretics  by  the   similitude  of  their  names 


62 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


Force  of 

this  evi- 
dence. • 


Cyril 


forth  both  the  personal  knowledge  of  Athanasius  as  far  back 
as  he  'could  remember,  and  that  of  his  early  instructors.  As 
he  was  made  Bishop  in  326,  we  may  fairly  presume  that  he  re- 
membered the  books  in  use  as  far  back  as  A.  D.  300,  and  that 
his  early  teachers  remembered  far  into  the  third  century.  All 
remembered  them  as  books  believed  to  have  been  delivered  to 
the  first  generation  of  "the  fathers  "by  the  "  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word."  They  must  have  existed  long  before, 
in  order  to  acquire  this  reputation. 

Our  next  catalogue  is  that  of  Cyril,  who  was  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem a  part  of  ilie  time  in  wliich  Athanasius  was  Bishop 
of  Alexandria.  He  lived  from  315  to  386  A.  D.  Jerome, 
who  wrote  his  life,  says  that  while  yet  a  youth  he  composed 

resembling  the  true  books  ;  Itliere-  much  pains  to  declare  those  of  the 
fore  entreat  you  to  bear  with  me  if  New.  They  are  these :  The  four 
I  by  writing  remind  you  of  things  Gospels,  according  to  Matthew, 
which  you  know  already,  as  what  according  to  Mark,  according  to 
may  be  of  use  for  the  church.  And  Luke,  according  to  John.  Then 
for  the  vindication  of  my  attempt,  after  them  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
I  adopt  the  form  of  the  Evangelist  ties,  and  the  seven  Epistles  of  the 
Luke,  who  himself  says:  Foras-  Apostles  called  catholic:  of  James 
much  as  some  have  taken  in  hand  one,  of  Peter  two,  of  John  three, 
to  set  forth  writings  called  apocry-  and  after  them  of  Jude  one.  Be- 
phal,  and  to  join  them  witii  the  di-  sides  these,  there  are  fourteen  Epis- 
vinely  inspired  Scriptures  of  which  ties  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  the  order 
we  are  fully  assured,  as  they.deliv-  of  which  is  thus:  the  first  to  the 
ered  them  to  the  fathers  who  were  Romans,  then  two  to  the  Corinth- 
eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  ians,  after  them  that  to  the  Gala- 
word  ;  it  has  seemed  good  to  me  tians,  the  next  to  the  Ephcsians, 
also,  with  the  advice  of  some  true  then  to  the  Philippians,  to  the 
brethren,  and  having  learned  it  Colossians,  after  them  two  to  the 
from  the  beginning,  to  set  forth  in  Thessalonians,  and  the  Epistle  to 
order  these  canonical  books  which  the  Hebrews,  then  two  to  Timothy, 
have  been  delivered  down  to  us,  to  Titus  one,  the  last  to  Philemon; 
and  are  believed  to  be  divine  Scrip-  and  again  the  Revelation  of  John, 
tnre:  that  every  one  who  has  been  These  are  the  fountains  of  Ralva- 
deccived  may  condemn  those  who  tion,  that  he  who  thirsts  may  be 
have  deceived  him,  and  that  he  satisfied  with  the  oracles  contained 
who  remains  uncorrupted  may  in  them.  In  those  alone  the  doc- 
have  the  satisfaction  to  be  remind-  trine  of  salvation  is  tauglit ;  let  no 
ed  of  what  he  is  persuaded  of."  man  add  to  (hem  or  take  from 
Here  follows  the  list  of  the  Old  them."  (lAirdncrs  Credibility,  iv., 
Testament  books,  and  the  writer  282-284.) 
proceeds:    "  Nor  do  I  think  it  too 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  63 

catechetical  lectures  for  the  instruction  of  candidates  for  bap- 
tism,' In  one  of  these  lie  gives  a  list  of  tlie  books  wliicii  *»'««*'*■ 
were  to  be  read  as  the  inspired  Scriptures,  and  it  agrees  pre- 
cisely with  ours  except  that  lie  omits  Revelation.  He  says  to 
his  pupil  :  "  The  Apostles  and  ancient  Bishops,  governors  of 
the  church,  who  have  delivered  these  to  us  were  wiser  and 
holier  than  thou.  As  a  son  of  the  church,  therefore,  transgress 
not  these  bounds."-  This  shows  that  all  the  books  of  the>tsevi- 
New  Testament  except  the  Apocalypse  were  in  use  in  Pales- 
tine, the  birth-place  of  Christianity,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  that  they  had  been  in  use  a  sufficient 
length  of  time  to  be  regarded  as  having  come  down  from  the 
Apostles  through  the  ancient  overseers  of  the  church. 

Eusebius,  called 'the  Father  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  be-EusiBius: 
cause  he  wrote  the  first  church  history  that  lias  come  down  to 
our  day,  is  our  next  witness.  He  lived  from  270  to  340  a.d., 
and  was  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Cfesarea  in  Palestine.  He 
was  45  years  old  when  C}'ril  was  born,  and  56  when  Athana- 
sius  was  made  Bishop  of  Alexandria;  his  testimony,  therefore, 
reaches  back  about  half  a  century  earlier  than  that  of  our 
last  two  witnesses.     He  lived  through  the  persecution  under  ^'s  account 

1         T-'  T~v       1       •  1   •    1  •  1      /•  -1/-V-.  of  the  UlO- 

the  Emperor   iJioeletian,  which   continued   irom  A.  i).  303  to  eietian  per- 
311,  and  Books  viii.  and  ix.  of  his  history  are  devoted  to  an"®*^"'"""' 
account  of  this  persecution.     The  edict  under  which  it  was  in- 
augurated   required  that  all  the  churches  be  razed  to  their 
foundations,  and  that  all  copies  of  the  Scriptures  be  burned.^ 

'  Quoted    by   Lardner,   iv.,   299,  ical    title,    corrupts    the    souls   of 

note  a.     His  catechetical    lectures  tin*  simplc-mindeil.      And  receive 

which  he  wrote  in  his  youth  are  also  the  Acts  of  the  twelve  Apos- 

extant.  ties;  in  addition  to  these,  also,  the 

'  Quoted  in  the  original  by  West-  seven  Catholic  Epistles  of  James 

Cott,Canon(if  Neir  Testament,  5A\,ry42.  and  Peter,  .Tolin  and  Jude,  and  the 

I  translate  the  part  concerning  the  seal    of  all,  tlie    last  W(trk   of  the 

New   Testament   as   follows:    "Of  disciples,  the  fourteen  K])istles  of 

the   New   Testament,   receive  the  Paul." 

four  Gospels.     Rut  the  others  are  '  "  It  was  the  nineteenth  year  of 

falsely  written  and  injurious.    The  the   reign   of   Diocletian,  and    the 

Maniclieans   have  al.so   written    a  month  Dystrus,  called  by  the  Ro- 

gospel  accordingtoThomas,  which,  mans  March,  in  which  the  festival 

as  by  the  fragrance  of  its  evangel-  of    our  Saviour's   pa.Hsion    was   at 


64  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

The  edict  was  universal,  and  it  was  executed  with  especial  zeal 
in  Africa,  Egypt,  Palestine,  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Italy  and 
Spain.'  Its  promulgation  shows  that  at  this  period  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures  were  in  use  throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  and 
that  they  were  well  known  to  the  heathen  autlioi-ities  as  the 
foundation  and  support  of  the  Christian  faith.^ 
hiscata-  Eusebius  leavcs  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  books  which  made 

logue ;  . 

up  the  Scriptures  whose  wide-spread  use  and  influence  are  thus 
indicated.  He  mentions  every  one  contained  in  our  New  Tes- 
tament. He  says,  however,  of  seven,  that  though  they  were 
well  known  and  recognized  by  most  persons,  they  were  con- 
troverted by  some.  These  were  Hebrews,  the  Epistles  of 
James  and  Jude,  II.  Peter,  11.  and  III.  John  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse.'*     He  says  of  the   same   books   in  "another  passage,  that 

hand,    when  the    imperial    edicts  assumed    the    unworthy   office    of 

were  everywhere  publislied,  to  tear  directing  the  blind  zeal  of  persecu- 

down  the  churches  to  their  foun-  tion,   had    diligently    studied    the 

dation.s,  and  to  destroy  the  sacred  nature  and  genius  of  the  Cliristian 

Scriptures  by  fire,  and  which  com-  religion ;     and  as  tliey   were  not 

mauded  also  tiaat  those  who  were  ignorant  that  the  speculative  doc- 

in  honorable   stations  should    be  trines  of  the  faith  were  supposed 

degradetl,    but    those    who    were  to  be  contained  in  the  writiugs  of 

freednion  should   be   deprived   of  the  i)rophets,  of    the   evangelists, 

their  liberty,  if  they  persevered  in  and    of    the    apostles,    they    most 

tiieir  adherence   to   C'hristianity."  prubably  suggested  the  order  tliat 

"  All  this  has  been  fulfilled  in  our  the  bishops  and  presbyters  should 

own  day,  when  we  saw  with  our  deliver  all  their  sacred  booUs  mto 

own   eyes  our  houses  of  worship  the  hands  of  the  magistrates,  who 

thrown  down  from  their  elevation,  vvere   commanded    under  the    se- 

the  sacred  Scriptures  of  inspiration  verest  penalties  to  burn  them  in  a 

committed  to  flames  in  the  mar-  public  and  solemn  manner."  ((iil)- 

kets,  the  sheplierds  of  the  jK'ople  i)()n,  Decline  and  Fall,  ii.,  (i4.) 
basely  concealed    here  an<l   there,       ■' "A mongthe  controverted  books, 

some  of  them  ignominiou'sly  cap-  which  are  nevertheless  well  known 

tured  an<l  the  sport  of  their  ene-  and  recognized  by  most  (ro/f  noX- 

mies."     {Ecde.i.  Ifisl.,  vii.  1,  2.)  ^ot(),  we  class  the  Epistle  circulated 

'  The  extent  of  the  persecution,  under  the  name  of  James,  and  that 

and  the  varying  degrees  of  sev(!rity  of  Jude,  as  well  as  the  second  of 

with  which  it  was  conducted,  an;  Peter,  and  the  so-(;alled  second  and 

tracfd  by  Gibbon  in  the  celebrated  third  of  John,  whether  they  really 

.Sixteentli  Chapter  of  Jiis  Decline  oelong  to  the  evangelist,  or  possi- 

und  Fall  of  tlie  Roman  Empire.  bly  to  another  of  tlu-  same  name. 

"  The    philosophers,  who   now  .     .     •     And    moreover,  aa  1  said 


2  X 


np:w  testament  books.  65 

'*  though  they  arc  not  caiKinical  but  controverted,  they  are  nev- 
ertlicless  constantly  recognized  by  most  of  our  ecclesiastical 
authorities."  ' 

The  force  of  this  evidence  depends  not  merely  on  the  ])er-  ]^^  '^'^^  ^' 
soual  knowledge  of  Eusebius,  which  reached  back  into  the  last  dcncc. 
quarter  of  the  third  century,  but  still  more  ujxm  the  llict  that 
he  had  gleaned  all  the  Christian  literature  which  had  come 
down  to  his  age.  He  constantly  refers  to  ''  the  ancients,"  and 
"  the  ancient  writers"  for  what  he  says  of  these  books.'  If 
we  suppose  that  by  ''ancient  writers"  he  meant  those  who 
lived  a.s  far  back  as  200  years  before  his  own  time,  he  in- 
cluded among  them  the  cotemporaries  of  the  Apostles.  His 
testimony,  therefore,  traces  at  least  the  uncontroverted  books 
to  the  apostolic  age,  and  he  gives  no  hint  that  the  others  had 
originated  at  a  later  date. 

Eusebius  lived  to  see  the  Christian  religion  established  by  ^^'^  ^'*''^^ 

t5  _      _         •    he  pre- 

law throughout  the  Roman    Empire.     Pie  was  commissioned  pared. 

by  Constantine,  the  first  Christian  Emperor,  to  have  transcril)ed 
fifty  copies  of  the  Bible  for  the  use  of  the  Churches  in  Con- 
stantinople, and  he  wrote  a  Life  of  Constantine  whom  he  sur- 
vived but  a  few  ycars.^ 

the  Apocalypse  of  John,  if  sucIj  an  what  ecclesiastical  writers  in  their 
opinion  seem  correct,  wiiich  some,  times  made  use  of  any  of  the 
as  I  said,  reject,  while  others  reck-  disputed  writings."  (iii.  3).  "  At 
on  it  among  the  books  generally  a  more  proper  time  we  shall  en- 
received."  lyanslatrd  hi/  Wcxirott  deavor  also  to  state,  by  a  reference 
{Canon,  415)  from  Eccles.  Hist.,  iii.,  to  some  of  the  ancient  writers,  what 
25.  Of  IIel)re\v8  he  deposes  as  fol-  others  have  said  respecting  the 
lows  :  "  Of  Paul  the  fourteen  Epis-  sacred  books.  But,  besides  the 
ties  commonly  received  are  at  once  Oospel  of  John,  his  first  Kpistle  is 
manifest  and  clear.  It  is  not  right,  acknowledged  without  dispute, 
however,  to  ignore  the  fact  that  both  by  those  of  the  jtresmt  day 
some  have  rejected  the  Epistlf  to  and  also  by  the  roicjV»/.s.  The  other 
the  Hebrews,  asserting  lliat  it  is  two  Ki)istk's,  however,  are  dis- 
gainsaid  by  the  Chiirch  of  Rome  as  puted.  The  opinions  respecting  the 
not  being  Paul's."  [Canon  of  New  Revelation  are  still  greatly  divided. 
Testament,  412.  Eccles.  Hist.,  iii.  3.)  But  we  .shall,  in  due  time,  give  a 
'  Eccles.  Ilist.,  iii.,  25.  jiidgment  on  this  point  also,  from 
'"But  as  I  proceed  in  my  hi.s-  tlie  testimonyof  thea»nV/i/s"(iii.24). 
tory,  I  shall  carefully  show,  with  'Book  X.  ol  Ecdesiai-tical  llis- 
the    succession    of    the    apostles,  tory  gives  an  ai-count  of  tlie  tinal 


66  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

Owoem:  We  now  go  back  to  Origen,  who  was   born  at  Alexandria, 

A.  D.  185,  and  died  in  254.     He  was  the  most  voluminous  and 

one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the   Greek  writers   of  the  early 

church.     He  wrote  commentaries  and  homilies  on  the  prinoij)al 

books  of  both   Testaments,  besides  volumes  on  various  other 

subjects ;  and   his   <lefense  of  Christianity  against   Celsus,  the 

first  infidel  writer,  is  one  of  the  most  noted  works  of  antiquity.' 

In  his  exposition  of  the  first  Psalm  he  incidentally  names  the 

Hiscata-     books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  a  homily  on  the  book  of 

log:ue  inci-    y      ,  ,  i  r     i       -vt        rn 

dentally      Joshua  he  names  those  of  the  JNew  iestament  as  we  now  have 

given.         them."     The  original  of  this  homily  has  perished,  and  we  are 

dependent  for  this  evidence  on  a  Latin  version  of  it,  but  there 

is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  substantial  correctness  of  the  version.^ 

In   other  passages  also  he  mentions  all  of  our  books.     In 

his  Commentary  on   Matthew  he   says  that  the  four  Gospels 

statement    ^lone  [as  Gospcls]  are  uncontroverted   in  the  Church,  and  that 

concerning  . 

theGospeiB.  they  Were  written  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John,  in  the 
order  here  given  to  their  names.^ 

triumph  ;  and  for  the  facts  concern-  in   his   Epistles  and   Apocalypse; 

ing  the  fifty  Bibles,  see  ii/e  o/ Con-  and    Luke,    while    describing    the 

stantine,  iv.,  34,  35.  Acts  of  the  Apostles.    Lastly,  how- 

'  A  ])rief  sketch  of  his  life  and  a  ever,  came  he  who  said,  '  I  think 

list  of  his  works  is  appended  to  the  that  God  hath  set  forth  us  Apostles 

second  volume  of  his  extant  writ-  last  of  all,'  and,  thundering  on  the 

ings  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Christian  fourteen  trumpets  of  his  Epistles, 

Library.  threw  down   even   to   the  ground 

^  After  describing  the  fall  of  .Ter-  the  walls  of  Jericho,  that  is  to  say, 
icho,  when  the  trumpets  were  all  the  instruments  of  idolatry  and 
blownby  the  priests,  he  says:  "So,  the  doctrines  of  philosopliers." 
too,  our  Lord,  wliose  advent  was  {Homily  on  Joshua  vii.  1,  quoted  and 
typified  by  the  son  of  Nun,  when  translated  by  Westcott,  Canon  of 
he  came,  sent  his  apostles,  bearing  Ncid  Testament,  358.) 
well-wrought  trumpets.  Matthew  ''  His  words,  as  quoted  by  Euse- 
fir.st  .sounded  the  priestly  trumpet  bins,  are  as  follows:  "I  have  un- 
in  his  Gospel.  Mark  also,  I>uke  derstood  from  tradition  respect- 
and  .Tolin,  each  gave  forth  a  strain  ing  the  four  Gospels,  which  are 
on  their  priestly  trumpets.  Peter,  the  only  undisputed  ones  in  the 
moreover,  sounded  loudly  on  the  whole  C'hurch  of  (rod  through- 
two-fold  trumpet  of  his  Epistles;  out  the  world,  that  the  first  is 
and  so  also  .James  and  Jude.  Still  written  according  to  Matthew,  the 
the  number  is  incomplete,  and  same  that  was  once  a  publican,  but 
.John  gives  forth  the  trumpet-sound  afterwards    an    apostle    of    .Jesus 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  67 

In  his  commentarv  on  the  gospel  of  John,  after  speaking 
in  general  terms  of  Paul's  epistles,  he  says:  "  But  Peter,  upon  concerning 
whom  the  church  of  (Mirist  is  built,  against  which  the  gates  ofEpistks. 
hell  shall  not  prevail,  has  left  one  epistle  imdisputcd.  Suj>- 
pose,  also,  the  second  was  left  by  him,  for  on  this  there  is  some 
doubt."  ^  But  although  he  thus  declares  that  there  was  some 
doubt  about  II.  Peter,  preventing  him  from  styling  it  like  I. 
Peter,  "undisputed,"  he  shows  his  own  judgment  of  it  not 
only  by  the  passages  cited  above  from  one  of  his  homilies  on 
Joshua,  but  also  by  ({noting  II.  Peter  i.  4,  with  the  formula, 
"Peter  said";  am!  II.  Peter  ii.  K),  with  the  words,  "As  the 
Scripture  says  in  a  certain  place";  and  by  citing  what  Peter 
said  in  his  "  first"  epistle,  implying  a  second." 

Eusebius  quotes  him  assaying  in  the  same  commentary,  ■^°''"*'^^ 
that  John  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  that  he  left  one  epistle  and 
perhaps  a  second  and  a  third,  "  for  all  do  not  allow  that  they 
are  genuine."^ 

Concerning  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  he  expresses  the "^'''^^^■• 
opinion  that  the  thoughts  are  Paul's,  but  that  the  diction  and 
phraseology  are   those   of  another.     He   says  that    some   a.s- 
cribed   the  writing  to  Clement,  and  others  to  Luke;   but  he 

Clirist,  who,  having  published   it  on  Numbers  xiii.  8  ;  and  l)e  Prin- 

for  the  Jewisli  converts,  wrote  it  in  cipiis  Viris,  II.,  n.,  3. 
Hebrew.     The  second  is  according       ^  "  What  shall    we  say   of    him 

to  Mark,  who  composed  it  as  Peter  who   reclined   upon   the  breast  of 

explained  to  him,  whom  he  also  Jesus?     I  mean  John,  who  has  left 

acknowledges  as   his    son    in    his  one  Gospel,  in  wiiicb  he  confesses 

general  Ei)istle,  saying,  '  The  elect  tliat  he  could  write  so  many  that 

church  in  Babylon  salutes  you,  as  the  whole  world  could  not  contain 

also    Mark,    ray  son.'       And    the  them.     He  also  wrote  the  Apoca- 

third  according  to  Luke,  the  Gos-  lypse,   commanded   as  he  was  to 

pel  commended    by   Paul,   which  conceal  and  not  to  write  the  voices 

was  written  for  the  converts  from  of  the   seven   thunders.     He   also 

the  Gentiles ;   and  last  of  all,  the  left  an  Epi.stle  consisting  of  a  very 

Gospel  according  to  John."     (Ec-  few  lines;  suppose  also  that  a  eec- 

cUs.  Hixl.,  VI.,  XXV.,  p.  245.)  on<l  and  third  are  from  him,  for  not 

•  lb.  VI.,  rxv.,  p.  2lf).  all  agree   that   tliey  are   genuine; 

'Quoted    by  Wvstcoit,  Cnnnn  of  but  both  together  do  not  cotitain  a 

New     Te»tnmeiU,    3o{),    n.    7;     from  hundred   lines."     (Quoted   by  Ku- 

Homily  on  Leviticus  iv.  4;    Com-  sebius,  Ecclca.  Hist.,   VI.,  xxv.,  p. 

mentaryonRomansiv.  9;  Homily  246.) 


68  (JENUINENESS  OF  THE 

shows  that  he  had  himself  fonnod  no  oj)iiiion  on  this  point  by 

saying,  "Who  it  was  that  really  wrote  the  epistle,  God  only 

knows.'" 

sumof  Ori-        "\ye  j^ow  scc  that  Origen's  catalogue  contained  all  the  books 

mony.        of  the  New  Testament ;  and  that  although  he  says  of  II.  Peter, 

and  II.  and  III.  John,  that  tliey  were  held   in  doubt  by  some, 

he  expresses  no  such  doubt  as  existing  in   his  own  mind.     It 

should  also  be  carefully  noted,  that  he  does  not  intimate  as  the 

ground  of  the  doubt  which   he   mentions  a   supposed    recent 

origin  of  any  of  these  epistles.     As  respects  Hebrews,  the  only 

doubt  he  expresses  has  reference  to  its  composition;  he  had 

none  as  to  its  apostolic  origin. 

Vaiueofhis        "pj^g  valuc  of  tliis  testimony  is  enhanced  bv  a  consideration 
testimony.       „        .  .   .         .        "  ...  .'  ir-     c    i 

of  Origens  opportunities  for  correct  information.      His  father, 

Leonides,  suffered  martyrdom  at  Alexandria  in  the  persecution 
under  Sei)tiniins  Severus,  who  reigned  193-211,  and  not  long 
after  his  father's  death  Origeii  was  made  teaciher  of  the  Cate- 
chumens in  Alexandria.  This  was  in  the  year  203,  when  he 
was  but  eighteen  yc^ars  of  age.  The  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  Scriptures  which  this  appointment  implies,  shows  that  his 
personal  accjuaintance  with  the  sacred  books  reached  back  into 
the  second  century;  and  the  information  that  he  derived  from 
his  martyred  father  reached  back  to  a  still  earlier  date.  It 
was  only  by  the  stern  command  of  his  father  that  he  was  dis- 
suaded from  joining  the  lalter  in  martyrdom.  Later  in  life  he 
visited  Palestine,  Syria  and  Greece;  and  he  made  his  home  at 
Ca-sarea  during  the  last  twenty-four  years  of  his  life,  though 
he  died  in  Tyre  after  suffering  extrcuK!  torture  at  the  hands  of 
persecutors.      His  life  was  full  of  trial  and  self-dcuiial,  and   he 

'"  I  would  say,  that  the  thonglits  .sucli   witliout  cause.  <But  wlio  it 

are  the  Ajjostlc's,  but  that  tlic  ilic-  was  that  actually  wrote  the  Kpis- 

tion    and    ])hra.s('()logy    belong    to  tie,    God    only    knows.       The  ac- 

Bome  one  who  has  recorded  what  count,  however,  that  has  been  cur- 

the    Apostle    .'<aid,    and    one    who  rent    before    us    is,   according    to 

noted  down  at  his  leisure  what  his  some,  that  Clement,  who  was  IJish- 

master    dictated.      If,    thi-n,    any  op   of   liome,    wrote   the    J']i)istle ; 

church    considers   this   Epistle   as  according  to    others,    that   it  was 

coming  from   Paul,  let  it  be  com-  written  by   Luke,  who  wrote  the 

mended  for  this;  for  neither  did  Gospel  and  Acts"  (JCcckn.  Hist.  vi. 

those  ancient  men  deliver    it  as  25,  pp.  21(i,  247). 


NEW  TESTAMENT  HOOKS.  69 

acquired  a  world-wide  fame  while  he  yet  lived.  His  testi- 
mony to  the  New  'IV'.staiiieiit  books  is  therefore  that  of  a  com- 
petent and  unimpeachable  witness.* 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  so  called  to   distintruish  him  from '^'-''-^'^-^■^'^'' 
an   earlier  Clement,  of  Rome,  is  the   next  writer  whose  testi-uHiA: 
mony  we  cite.      He  lived  from  about  1(J5  a.  d.  to  220."     In 
early  life  he  was  a   student  of  j)agan  j)hilosophy,  but  on  be- 
coming a  Christian  he  visited  eminent  teachers  ol'  Christianily 
in   Greece,  Syria,  Kgypt,  Palestine  and   other  countries,  to  re- ""* '^"'"'^ 
ceive  their  oral  instruction;^     Such  was  his  proficiency  in  these 
studies  that  he  was  made  catechetical  teacher  in  Alexandria  in 
189,  and  continued  to  hold  the  jxjsition  till  202,  when  he  left 
Alexandria,  and  was  su('ee(!ded  by  his  pupil  Origen.^     His  ex- ^^'^"'"i'- 

P14  -VT-  ings  anil  the 

tant  writings  hll  two  of  the  ocitavo  volumes  of  the  Ante-Nicene  books  he 
Library,  but  one  of  his  most  important  works,  which  bore  the"*™*^*^  '"* 

•'   ,  /  ,  _         lost  work. 

Greek  title  Hypotuposes  (Outlines)  has  perished.  Eusebius, 
who  had  this  work  before  him,  says  that  in  it  Clement  gave 
concise  explanations  of  all  the  canonical  scriptures,  "not  omit- 
ting the  disputed  books." '^     This  statement  is  confirmed  so  far 

'  Eusebins  irives  a  disconnected  getfulness;    truly   an    image    and 

account   of   his  career  in   Ecclesi-  outline  of  tliose  vigorous  and  ani- 

astical    History,  Book    vi. ;     Lard-  mated  discourses  which  I  was privi- 

ner  gives  a  lonnecteil  account  in  leged  to  iiear,  and  of  blessetl  and 

Vol.  II.  of  his  Credibility;  and  a  truly  remarkable  men.     Of  these 

brief  account  is  given  in  the  vol-  the  one  in  Greece,  an  Ionic,  and 

ume  of  the  A nte-Xicene  Christian  the  other  in  Magna  Grecia:   the 

Library  containing  his  extant  wri-  first  of  these  from  CVde-Syria,  the 

tings.  second  from  Egypt,  and  others  in 

■■'Neither  the  place  nor  the  ex-  the  East.    The  one  was  l)orn  in  the 

act  date  of  either  his  birth  (II  death  land   of  Assyria,  and  the  other  a 

is  certainly   known   (see    I.ardner,  Hebrew   in    I'lilestine "    (Stromula, 

Vol.  II.  c.  22),  but  the  above  are  B.  L,  c.  i.,  Ault-Xirnic   Lihranj,  iv. 

the   dates    accepted    by    the    best  355). 

scholars  as  the  most  prol)able.  See  *  Eccleii.  Hist.,  vi.  G  ;    Ante-Nicene 

Westcott  on  the  Canon,  :i")().  Library,  iv.  »,  an.l  references  there 

'  That  he  was  proficient  in  pagan  given, 

philosophy  is  apparent  throughout  *  "  In   the  work    called   HyiHjtu- 

his  works  from    ids  frequent  refer-  poses,  to  sum  up  the  matter  briefly, 

ences  to  it.    Of  his  Christian  teach-  he  has  given  us  abridged  accounts 

ers,    lie    speaks  as   follows:    "My  of  all  the  canonical  .Scriptures,  not 

memoranda  are  stored  up  atrainst  even  omitting  those  that  are  dis- 

old  age,  us  a  remedy  against  for-  puted.     I  mean  the  book  of  Jude 


70 


(5ENU1NENESS  OF  THE 


Hebrews. 


as  the  epistles  are  concerned  by  Photius,  a  Latin  writer  of  the 
ninth  century,  who  also  had  read  the  lost  work,  and  who  says 
that  it  contained  interpretations  of  Paul's  epistles  and  the 
Catholic  epistles,  the  '' disj)uted  epistles"  being  included  in 
the  latter  expression.^  According  to  these  statements,  while 
Clement  made  no  formal  catalogue  of  the  books  in  question, 
he  did  what  was  equivalent,  he  gave  ex])lanati()ns  more  or  less 
elaborate  of  them  all.^ 

Eusebius  quotes  Clement  as  saying  concerning  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  that  it  was  written  by  Paul  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  and  translated  into  Greek  by  Luke.  Li  this  way  he 
accounts  for  its  similarity  in  style  and  phraseology  to  Acts,  and 
he  supposes  that  Paul  left  it  anonymous  lest  the  prejudices  of 
the  Jews  against  him  might  prevent  them  from  reading  it.' 


and  the  other  general  Epistles. 
Also  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and 
that  called  the  Revelation  of  Peter" 
{Eccles.  Hist.  vi.  14). 

'  "  Now  the  whole  scope  of  the 
book  consists  in  giving,  as  it  were, 
interpretations  of  Genesis,  of  Ex- 
odus, of  the  Psalms,  of  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul,  and  of  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  and  of  Ecclesiasticus " 
(Quoted  by  Westcott,  Canon,  3o2). 

This  statement  differs  from  that 
just  quoted  from  EuseV)ius  (Note 
25)  as  to  the  number  of  books 
treated  in  tbe  work,  but  the  two 
statements  are  alike  in  regard  to 
the  Catholic  Epistles. 

*  Lardner  (ii.  228,  229),  followed 
by  AVestcott  (Canon  of  New  Testa- 
ment, 352-4),  expresses  doubt  as  to 
the  strict  correctness  of  Eusebius 
and  Photius  (Notes  25,  2())  concern- 
ing the  Catholic  Epistles,  basing 
the  doubt  on  a  statement  of  C!as- 
siodorns,  a  writer  of  tlie  sixth  cen- 
tury, who  says  that  Clement  made 
some  comments  on  the  Canonical 
Epistles,  "  that  is  to  .say,  on  the 
First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  the  First 


and  Second  of  St.  John,  and  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James."  He  says 
further  that  he  had  been  solicitous 
concerning  the  other  Canonical 
Epi.stles,  w  hen  he  met  with  a  book 
of  one  Didymus  giving  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  seven.  This  shows  that 
Cassiodorus  knew  of  comments  by 
Clement  on  only  four  of  the  seven 
Catholic  Epistles.  This  can  be  ac- 
counted for  by  supposing  either 
that  those  on  the  other  three  were 
absent  from  his  manuscrii)t  of 
Clement,  or  that  Eusebius  and 
Photius  were  botli  mistaken.  It 
seems  to  us  that  the  former  of 
these  alternatives  is  more  proba- 
ble than  the  latter,  and  that  the 
positive  statement  of  the  two  wri- 
ters is  to  l)e  accepted. 

•'  "  But  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews he  [Clement]  asserts,  was 
written  by  Paul  to  the  Hebrews  in 
the  II('l)rew  tongue;  l)ut  that  it  was 
carefully  translated  by  Luke  and 
published  among  the  Greeks. 
Whence  one  also  finds  the  same 
chara<ter  of  style  and  of  jthrase- 
ology  in    the    Epistle  as   in  Acta. 


NEAV  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  71 

But  in  addition  to  this  second-hand  testimonv,  wc  find  in  ^°<^''*  "8^<^ 

1  •  •  •  11  1  i>      "  ill  his  ex- 

his  extant  writings  that  he  names  and  quotes  from  every  book  lant  works. 
in  the  New  Testament  except  Philemon,  James,  II.  Peter  and 
III.  John.^ 

This  evidence  is  furnished  by  a  man  who  was  horn  within  f"orceof 
sixty-five  years  of  the  death  (tf  the  apostle  John,  and  haddence. 
received  instruction  from  eminent  teachers  who,  to  use  his  own 
words,  "  Preserving  the  tradition  of  the  blessed  doctrine  de- 
rived directly  from  the  holy  apostles,  Peter,  James,  John  and 
Paul,  the  son  receiving  it  from  the  father  (but  few^  Mere  like 
the  fathers)  came  by  God's  will  to  us  also  to  deposit  those  an- 
cestral and  apostolic  seeds."  ^  How  few  generations  of  trans- 
mission are  here  alluded  to  can  be  realized,  if  we  remember 
that  a  man  eighty-five  years  of  age  could  have  lived  ten  years 
with  the  apostle  John  and  ten  years  with  Clement.  The  in- 
terval was  too  brief  for  books  originating  within  it  to  be  trans- 
mitted as  having  been  known  since  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

Tertullian,  a  famous  Latin  writer  of  Africa,  was  born  in  tertulu- 
Carthage  about  a.  d.  160,  and  died  about  a.  d.  240.^     He^'' 
was,  therefore,  a  cotemporary  of  Origen  and  Clement,  and  his 
personal   knowledge  of  the  New  Testament   books   extended 
through  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.     lie  left  no 
formal   catalogue,  but   his  extant  writings  eontain  statements  Misuse  of 
concerning  the  gospels  and  Paul's  epistles  that  are  equivalent  "^  *^"^^*' ^ 
to  a  catalogue,  and  he  mentions  all  the  other  books  except  U.  Paul's  Epis- 
Pfter,  James,  and  the  two  shorter  epistles  of  John.     He  names 
our  four  gospels,  and  says  that  Matthew  and  John^  were  writ- 

But  it  is  probable   tliat  the   title,  Clement  Ijelonping  to   the  Ante- 
Paul  the  Apostle,  was  not  prefixed  Niccne  Christian  Liljrary. 
to   it.       For  as   he   wrote   to    the  '^  Stramnta,   i.  i.  {Ante-Nicem-  Lib. 
Hebrews  who  had  imbibed  preju-  Vol.  iv.  Soo). 

dices  against  liiin,  and  suspected  ■'' i>ee  the  evidences  and  opinions 
him,  he  wisely  guards  a>;ainst  di-  aildnced  by  Lardner,  ii.  '_'.").'?,  and 
vertiuK  them  from  the  perusal  by  also  Westcott,  Taoox,  .•?4I. 
giving  his  name'"  (/•^■(•/«.i.  //(-.sr.vi.  '"Of  the  Apostles,  therefore, 
!•*)•  John  and  Matthew  first  instill  faith 
'  The  citations  are  too  numerous  into  us;  whilst  of  apostolic  men, 
for  our  space,  but  they  may  be  Luke  and  Mark  renew  it  after- 
found  in  Lardner's  Credibility,  ii.  ward  "  (  r.r/i(///an  mjain»l  Mnrcion, 
210-230,  and  in  the  two  volumes  of  iv.  ii,  2S0). 


72  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

ten  by  apostles,  and  Mark  and  I^uke  by  "  apostolic  men."  In 
the  last  book  of  his  work  against  Marcion,  he  names  all  of 
Paul's  epistles  to  churches  in  regular  order,  drawing  an  argu- 
ment from  each  one  separately,  thus  refuting  Marcion  out  of 
the  very  books  on  wliieh  he  relied  to  su})j)or(  his  heresy.  He 
does  the  same  with  Pliilemon,  and  twits  Marcion  for  accepting, 
as  he  did,  this  personal  epistle,  yet  rejecting  the  two  to  Timothy 
and  the  one  to  Titus.'  Thus  he  arrays  the  thirteen  epistles  of 
Paul  as  authorities  in  debate.  He  was  also  acquainted  with  He- 
Hebrews,  brews,  but  he  represents  it  as  having  been  written  by  Jiarnabas.^ 
Acts,  He  frequently  quotes  Acts  of  the  Apostles  by  its  title,  ascribing 

it  to  Luke,  and  asserting  that  those  who  do  not  receive  it  have 
no  means  of  showing  when,  or  with  what  beginnings  the  church 

I.Peter.       ^^^j^^  formed.^    He  quotes  bv  name  1.  Peter  and  Jiide.^    He  also 
Jude,  ' 

'  "To  this  Epistle  alone  did  its  knew  not  even  by  hearing"  (De 
brevity  avail  to  protect  it  against  I>aj>tlx)jio,  x.  248).  "  ]\loreover, 
the  falsifying  hands  of  Marcion.  I  since  in  the  same  Conmu'ntary  of 
wonder,  however,  when  he  re-  Luke,  both  the  third  hour  uf  pray- 
ceived  this  letter  which  was  writ-  er  is  pointed  out,  at  which,  when 
ten  to  but  one  man,  that  he  reject-  entered  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they 
ed  the  two  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  w'ere  held  to  be  drunk,  and  the 
the  one  to  Titus,  which  all  treat  of  sixth,  at  which  Peter  went  up  on 
ecclesiastical  discipline.  His  aim  the  house-top,"  etc.  (J)e  Jcjuniis,  c. 
was,  I  sui)pose,  to  carry  out  his  10).  "And  assuredly  He  fulfilled 
interjiDlating  f)rncess  even  to  the  His  promise,  since  it  is  proved  in 
num])er  of  Epistles"  {TertiUlian  the  Acts  of  tlie  Apostles  that  tiie 
uyaiiixl  Marcion,  v.  xxi.  478).  Holy  Spirit  did  come  down.     Now 

'^  He  says:  "  For  there  isan  Epis-  they  who  irjccl  that  Scrii)ture  can 
tie  of  Barnabas,  inscribed  to  the  neither  belong  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Hebrews,  written  by  a  man  of  such  seeing  they  can  not  acknowledge 
authority,  that  Paul  has  placed  that  the  Holy  Sj)irit  has  been  sent 
him  with  himself  in  the  .same  as  yet  to  the  discii)les,  nor  can  they 
course  of  abstinence:  'Or  I  only  pretend  (o  claim  to  be  a  church 
and  Harnabas,  have  we  not  power  themselves  who  positively  have  no 
to  forbear  working?'"  Then  fol-  means  of  proving  when  and  with 
lows  a  quotation  from  Hel).  vi.  4-  what  infant  nursing  this  Ixjtly  was 
8.  Set!  the  passagf^  cited  from  Pr  established  "  (Prescription  tujaind 
J'adirltiii,  })y  l-;\rdncr,  CrrdihUilii,  Jfrntlcs,  xxii.  2G). 
ji.  270.  ^  "  Peter  says  to  the  jx'Ople  of 

'"Accordingly,  in  the  Acts  of  Ponfus,  How  great  glory  it  is,  if, 
the  Apostles  we  find  that  men  who  when  ye_  are  punished  for  your 
had  .lolin's  baijtism  had  not  re-  faults  yet  lake  it  patii-ntly,"  etc.  (I. 
ceived  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  they    Peter  ii.  20,  21).      Lardner,  ii.  274 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  73 

nuotcs  frcqiuntlv  frdiii  I.  John  and  the  Aixjcalvnso,  ascribing: ^•"^"'•^"• 

»       ,  T    ,  ■     ,  1.1'  fe  Revelation. 

the  latter  to  John. 

In  addition  to  tiic  testimony  jrivon   in  this  indirect  way,  *^'^*^^°""' 

Tiir        •  \  •  °^  theorl- 

Tertullian,  in  opposition  to  Marcion  who  rejected  all  the  Gos-ginand 

pels  exceiit  Luke's,  and  was  eharf2:ed  with  miitilatin[i:  this,  in.><istsP''^^7fJ 
•  1  '  '^  .     T  ^'^^  of  ^hc 

that  the  Gospels  came  down  "  from  the  very  beginning,"  *'  from  Gospels, 

the  apostles,"  and  that  they  liad  been  ke])t  as  a  sacred  deposit 

in  the  churches  planted  by  the  ])ersonal  labors  of  the  Apostles, 

as  well  as  in  others."     He  furthermore  refers  such  persons  as""*''^'^"'°" 

graph.s  of 

would   indulge  their  curiosity,  to  the  cliurches  to  which  letters  the  EpisUes 
were  written  by  Apostles,  and  affirms  that  in  these  ''their  own 
authentic  letters  are  read,  uttering  the  voice  and  representing 
the  face  of  each  of  them  separately."^     There  has  been  much 

n.  f.    In  arguing  for  the  genuine-  reference   to  the   latter  he  adds: 

nesB  of  tlie  Book  of  Enoch,  he  says:  "  The  same  authority  of  the  apos- 

"  To  these  considerations  is  added  tolic  churches  will  aflbrd  evidence 

the  fact  that  Enoch  possesses  a  tes-  to  the  other  Gospels  also,  which 

timony  in  the  Apostle  Jude  "(Jude  we  possess  equally  through  their 

14,  15).     On  Female  Drens,  iii.  708.  means  and  according      to      their 

'  "  John  exhorts  us  to  lay  down  usage— I  mean  the  Gospels  of  John 

our  lives  for  our  brethren,  denying  and  Matthew — whilst  that  which 

that  there  is  any  fear  in  love;  for  Mark  published  may  be  affirmed 

perfect  love  casteth  out  fear"  (I.  to    be   Peter's,   whose   interpreter 

John  iii.  16  ;  iv.  18).      Lardner,  ii,  Mark  was.      For  even  Luke's  form 

275:   "John  in  his  Apocalypse  is  of  the  Gospel  men  usually  ascribe 

commanded  to  chastise  those  who  to  Paul,  and  it  may  well  seem  that 

eat  things  sacrificed  to  idols  and  the  works  which  disciples  pul)lish 

commit  fornication  "  (Rev.  ii.  14).  belong  to  their  masters."  (Aijnimt 

Pretcription  agaimt  Heresm,  xxxiii.  Marcion,  v.  186,  187). 
40.  -^  "  Come  now,   you   who  would 

''  "On  the  whole,  then,  if  that  is  indulge  abetter  curiosity,  run  over 

evidently  more  true  whiih  is  ear-  the  Apostolic  churches,  in  which 

lier,  if  that  is  earlier  which  is  from  the  very  thrones  of  the  Apostles 

the  beginning,  if  that  is  from  the  are  preeminent  in  their  places,  in 

beginning  which  has  the  Apostles  whicii    their    own    authentic   wri- 

for  its  authors,  then  it  will  i-ertain-  tings  are  read,  uttering  the  voice 

ly  be   quite   as   evident  that   tiiat  and  repres(>nting  the  face  of  each 

comes    down    from    the    Apostles  of  them  severally.     Achilla  is  very 

which   has  been   kept  as  a  .sacred  near  you,  rou  fin<l  CJorinth.    .Since 

deposit   in    the    churches    of    the  you  are  not  far  from  Macedonia, 

Apostles."     He  then  refers  to  the  you   have   Philippi,  you  have  the 

writings  of  Paul,  Peter  and  John,  Thessalonians.    Since  you  are  able 

and   to   Luke's   Gospel,   an<l  with  to  cross  to  Asia,  you  get  Ephesus- 


74  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

dispute  over  the  word  "  authentic"  as  used  in  this  passage.  If 
TertuUian  meant  by  it  only  to  affirm  that  well  authenticated 
copies  of  the  Epistles  were  in  those  churches,  the  remark  could 
scarcely  have  been  worth  making;  for  the  same  was  equally 
true  of  other  churches.  He  must  have  meant  that  the  auto- 
graphs themselves  were  still  preserved.  In  this  he  may  have 
been  mistaken,  or  have  indulged  in  rhetorical  exaggeration ; 
yet  it  is  not  at  all  incredible  that  the  autographs  had  been  pre- 
served until  that  time.  But  the  value  of  the  testimony  de- 
pends not  so  much  upon  the  accuracy  of  this  statement,  as  upon 
the  fact  which  it  makes  manifest  that  the  churches  referred  to 
believed  themselves  to  have  received  such  letters  from  Apostles, 
and  in  this  belief  they  can  not  have  been  mistaken. 

MoRATORi-         'y\^^,  earliest  formal  catal(»y;ue  of  the  New  Testament  books 
AN  Canon:  .  ^       i  n     i     i      n«-  •        /-i 

now  extant,  is  that  of  a  document  called  the  JVLuratorian  Canon. 
The  manuscript  of  this  document  was  found  in  1740  in  an  old 
library  in  Milan,  by  an  Italian  named  Muratori,  whence  the 
title  Muratorian.  The  MS.  belongs  to  the  seventh  or  the 
eighth  century,  and  is  a  Latin  translation  from  a  Greek  origi- 
ns date;  nal.  It  claims  to  have  been  composed  by  a  cotemporary  of 
Pius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  died  in  the  year  157,  and  it  is  not 
therefore  of  later  date  than  a.  d.  170.'  The  existing  MS.  is 
fragmentary,  having  lost  some  lines  from  both  the  beginning 
and  the  end.  It  begins  with  the  last  words  of  a  sentence  of 
which  there  is  not  enough  left  to  make  complete  sense,  and 
continues  thus:  "  In  the  third  place  is  the  book  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke."  ^  After  a  l)rief  account  of  Luke,  it  states 
that  John's  Gospel  is  the  fourth.  This  enumeration  makes  it 
quite  certain  that  the  part  torn  away  spoke  of  Matthew  an<l 
thoeeit  Mark.  It  contains  all  the  other  books  except  the  two  Kj)istles 
of  Peter,  I.  John,  James  and  Hebrews.  As  these  important 
Epistles  are   absent,  while    II.  and  III.  John,  and   Philemon, 

Sinrc,  moreover,  you  are  cIoRe  up-  eliair  in  the  clinnli  at  Rome."   See 

on    Italy,  you   have   Uomc."  {Pre-  the    Canon   quoted    l)y    Westcott, 

srriptinn  nrjainM  Ifrrfxirs,  xxxvi.  42).  Canon  of  New  TeKlnment,  20{),  n.  1. 

'   "  Hennas  wrote  Tlie  Shepiierd       '  "Quiljus  tiinien  interfuit  et  ita 

very  reeently  in  our  own   time  in  ixtsuit.  Tertio  Enangelii,  Iit)rum  se- 

the  City  of  Rome,  wliile  his  brother  euncJo  Lucan." 
Pius  was  occupying  the  Bishop's 


the  books  it 
mentions ; 


omila; 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  76 

far  le8S  important,  are  present,  it  is  more  probable  that  the 

former  have  been  lost  from   it  than  that  tiiey  were  originally 

omitted.' 

The  author  of  this  catalofrue  wrote  when   Tertullian,  our ''''''^® °' ^'^ 

.  evidence, 

last  witness,  was  but  ten  years  of  age.     His  personal  knowl-     • 

edge  of  the  books,  if  he  was  a  middl(>-aged  man  when  he 
wrote,  reached  back  into  the  first  half  of  the  second  century, 
and  he  may  have  conversed  with  men  who  had  lived  in  the 
midst  ot  the  AjKJstles,  and  his  information  concerning  the 
origin  of  our  books  may  have  been  derived  to  some  extent 
from  original  witnesses. 

The  earliest  writer  who  set  forth  a  formal  list  of  the  books  Mabcion: 
which  he  accepted  as  authoritative,  was  Marcion,  who  came 
from  Pontus  to  Rome  about  tiie  year  140,"  and  was  then  a 
teacher  of  great  notoriety.  He  was  the  founder  of  a  heretical 
party  called  Marcionites  after  his  own  name.  While  the 
Ebionites,  an  intensely  Jewish-Christian  sect,  the  theological 
offspring  of  the  Judaizers  against  whom  Paul  waged  so  con- ! 
stant  a  warfare,  rejected  all  of  Paul's  writings,  and  also  the 
writings  of  Luke,  because  he  wa.s  under  Paul's  influence,  Mar- 
cion took  the  opposite  extreme,  and  claiming  that  Paul  was  the 
only  Apostle  who  understood  the  gospel  correctly,  he  rejected  "'^  ''"°^* 
all  the  New  Testament  writings  except  ten  of  Paul's  Epistles, 
and  Luke's  Gospel.  The  two  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  the  one 
to  Titus  he  rtyected  for  reasons  that  are  not  known,  and  also 
Hebrews.  His  teaching  demonstrates  the  previous  general 
recognition  of  this  Gospel  and  these  ten  P^pistles,  while  his  ^'^j^'"^^**® 
antagonism  to  the  other  Gospels  and  to  the  writings  in  general 
of  the  other  Apostles,  demonstrates  the  existence  of  those. 
Moreover,  the  ground  on  which  he  rejected  the  latter  was  not 
their  want  of  genuineness,  but,  admitting  their  geiuiineness,  he 
denied   the  ajiostoiic  authority   ol'   their  authors.'     Thus  the 

'  "Westcott  gives  tlio  whole  T.atin  A'/W/',  S5),  at  140. 

text  of  this  floruinont,  and  •li.'scnsa-  ''This  is  implied    in  th(^  follow- 

es  it  exhau.stively  (r"f7Hon  of  New  inp  extract  from  Tortullian's  ropi)-: 

7V«raj?»^n/,  208-218,  and  AppmdixC).  "  Bnt  Martion,  finding  the  Epistle 

*  Westcott  (Canon  of  New  TeMn-  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  wherein 

mnil,  'MY)),  fixes  the  date  between  he  rehnkes  even  Apostles  for  not 

139  and  142;  Davidson  (Cnnon  oj  the  walking:  uprightly  according  to  the 


Uii^  teach- 
ng; 


76 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


direct  and  indirect  evidence  from  this  source  combine  to  show 
that  at  least  the  greater  part  of  our  books  were  known  to  Mar- 
cion,  and  his  knowledge  reached  back  into  the  first  quarter  of 
the  second  century. 
Summary  f  he  five  writers  last  quoted,  Marcion,  the  author  of  the 

in  the  sec-  Muratoriau  Canon,  Tertullian,  Clement  and  Origcn,  unitedly 
ondcentu-  j^iention  bv  name  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  They 
are  the  earliest  group  of  writers  who  do  so,  and  they  all  lived 
within  the  second  century,  spanning  with  their  personal  knowl- 
edge the  whole  of  this  century  from  the  beginning  of  its  sec- 
ond quarter  to  its  close.  They  declare  that  these  books  had 
been  handed  down  "  from  the  fathers,"  "  from  the  ancients," 
"  from  the  Apostles ; "  and  they  speak  from  Rome,  from 
Africa,  from  Egypt,  from  Palestine.  The  age  of  a  single  man 
may  have  overlapped  the  early  days  of  the  latest  of  the  five 
and  the  latter  part  of  the  life  of  John.  We  have  therefore 
itsconciu-  traced  the  existence  of  these  books  by  unquestionable  evidence 
biveness.  ^^  ^^^^  second  generation  after  that  of  the  Apostles,  and  we  find 
them  at  that  time  widely  circulated  over  the  world  as  ajmstolic 
writings.  Can  they  have  gained  this  circulation  and  this  rep- 
utation if  they  had  originated  by  forgery  within  the  interven- 
ing generation  ?  We  find  also  these  unimpeached  witnesses  as- 
serting that  they  had  received  these  books  from  their  flithers, 
who  had  received  them  from  the  cotemporaries  of  the  Apos- 
tles. Is  it  credible  that  all  of  these  were  deceived,  or  that  they 
all,  in  widely  separated  parts  of  the  world,  conspired  together 
to  impose  upon  their  fellow-men  as  apostolic,  books  which  their 
fellow-men  must  have  known  to  be  of  recent  origin  ?  If  it  is 
not,  then  the  evideneo  from  catalogues  alone  is  credible  proof 
that  all  of  the  New  Testament  books  originated  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles. 

truth  of  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  ac-  sootli,  to  seciire  for  his  own  gospel 

cuses  certain  false  apostles  of  per-  the   credit   which    he   takes  away 

verting  the  (iosi)el  of  Christ,  lahors  from    them  "  (Agnimt   Mnrclon,  iv. 

very  hard  to  destroy  the  standing  3).     A   hrief  account  of  the  career 

of  therte  Gospels  which  are  puh-  of  Marcion  and  of  his  teaching  is 

lished  as  genuine  and  under  the  given   by  Westcott  {Canon  of  New 

name   of   Apostles,   in  order,  for-  Testament,  308-315). 


CHAPTER  II. 


EVIDENCE  FROM  VERSIONS. 


It  is  self-evident  that  every  book  must  be  as  old  as  any  Nature  and 
translation  of  it  into  another  language,  and  that  so  far  back  as  J^.^d'ence  :'^ 
we  can  find  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament  books,  we  trace 
their  existence  by   this  fact  to   the  same  date.     Moreover,  a 
book  is  seldom  translated  until  it  has  acquired  such  a  reputa- 
tion in  its  original  tongue  as  to  create  a  demand  for  it  in  some 
other  country  where  a  different  tongue  is  spoken.     The  period 
necessary  for  this   was  comparatively   long  in   ancient   times, 
when  literary  intercourse  between  nations  of  different  languages 
was   not  so  free  as  in  this  age  of  travel,  of  newspapers  and  of 
printed  books.     The   New   Testament  books,  therefore,   must 
have  been  in  existence  for  a  considerable  period  previous  to  the 
earliest  translation  of  them.     As  we  have  already  traced  their '^^ '"*''t'"=- 
existence  by  evidence  indisputable  into  the  second  centurv,  we'"'" 
need  not  start  with  this  new  evidenc;>  at  a  later  perio<l,  but  we 
shall  begin  with  it  where  the  other  terminated. 

We  have  already  given  evidence  in  Part  First,'  that  in  the  ^^''i^'-'^® 

t      .  ,  n   .1  1  .  from  the 

last  quarter  of  the  second  century  two  versions  were  made  into  Coptic  ver- 
the  two  dialects  of  the  Coptic  language,  the  dialects  of  Lower''""* 
and  of  Upper  Egyj)t,  and  that  both  of  these  versions  contained 
the  whole  of  our  present  Xew  Testament.  This  shows  that 
all  of  these  booUs  had  existed  long  enough  in  the  original 
Greek  to  become  known  throughout  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  they  had  such  a  reputation  as  created  a  <lemand  for  their 
translation  into  the  native  tongues  of  that  e(»untry.  It  should 
be  remembered,  too,  thai  (Jreek  was  the  prevailing  language  in 

(77) 


78 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


From  the 

Peshito 

Syriac. 


From  the 
Old  Latlu. 


Alexandria,  the  literary  and  political  center  of  the  country,  and 
that  consequently  the  demand  for  a  vernacular  version  in  Egypt 
was  not  so  prompt  as  it  otherwise  might  have  been.  When 
made,  the  version  contained  the  same  books  which  were  used, 
as  we  have  seen,  by  the  two  famous  Greek  teachers  at  Alexan- 
dria, Clement  and  Origen,  who  continued  their  labors  after 
these  versions  had  gone  into  use.  Is  it  credible  that  these 
books  were  of  recent  origin,  and  that  the  scholars  and  churches 
of  Egypt  were  deceived  in  thinking  that  they  had  been  in  use 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles? 

The  Peshito  Syriac  version  carries  the  evidence  to  a  still 
earlier  date.  It  was  made,  as  we  have  seen  in  Part  First,  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  it  contained  all  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  but  five,  viz.:  II.  Peter,  II.  and 
III.  John,  Jude  and  Revelation.^  It  was  made  for  the  people  of 
Syria,  of  which  Antioch  was  the  principal  city.  Its  existence 
implies  the  Conversion  to  Christ  of  so  many  persons  in  that 
country  who  could  read  only  tlie  Syriac  tongue,  that  a  transla- 
tion of  their  sacred  books  was  demanded.  The  fact  that  the 
Greek  language  was  prevalent  in  Syria  among  the  educated 
classes,  would  naturally  retard  the  rise  of  such  a  demand,  yet  it 
existed  and  was  supplied  within  fifty  years  of  the  death 
of  the  last  apostle.  Among  the  persons  for  whose  use  the 
version  was  made  were  many  wliose  fathers,  or  whose  aged 
friends,  had  been  baptized  by  Apostles  and  their  fellow-labor- 
ers. They  believed  these  books  to  have  been  written  by  those 
men,  and  to  have  been  handed  down  to  themselves  by  their 
own  fathers.  It  must  be  conceded  that  they  could  not  have 
thus  believed  if  the  books  were  recent  fi)rgeries  which  their 
fathers  had  never  seen.  It  seems  scarcely  possible  to  doubt 
that  this  evidence  alone  traces  the  books  contained  in  this  ver- 
sion to  the  apostolic  agr. 

Almost  simultaneously  with  the  Peshito  Syriac  in  Syria 
appeared  the  Old  Tjatin  Vcrsicjii  in  Africa.  V>y  soiiu;  scholars 
it«  date  is  fixed  a  little  earlier;  by  others  a  little  later;  but  the 
very  latest  date  that  can  be  assigned   it  is   the  year  170.^     It 

'  See  p.  34.  ''  -See  p.  ^o,  where  the  evidences 

are  given. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  79 

■was  not  made  in  Italy,  as  one  would  naturally  suppose,  but  in 
the  Roman  provinee  of  Africa,  of  which  C'arthage  wa.s  the 
principal  city,  and  where  Latin  was  the  prevalent  language. 
The  church  in  Rome  itself  continued  thus  far  to  use  Greek 
literature.'  As  Greek  was  but  little  known  in  Africa,  a  trans- 
lation of  the  Greek  scriptures  became  indispensable  as  soon  as 
the  disciples  became  numerous.  This  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  although  Africa  was  among  the  latest  of  the  Roman  prov- 
inces to  be  evangelized,-  it  was  among  the  first  to  possess  a 
translation  of  the  Christian  scriptures.  The  publication  of  this 
translation  so  soon  after  the  conversion  of  the  people,  makes  it 
j)r()bable  that  they   received  the   translation   from  the  same 

'  "  At  first  it  seemed  natural  to  and,  at  a  later  period,  we  find  the 
look  to  Italy  as  the  center  of  the  Bishop  of  Corinth  writing  in  Greek 
Latin  literature  of  Christianity,  to  Soter,  the  ninth  in  succession 
and  the  original  source  of  that  from  Clement.  .  .  .  The  apolo- 
Latin  version  of  the  Holy  Script-  gies  to  the  Roman  emperors  were 
ures  which,  in  a  later  form,  has  in  Greek.  .  .  .  The  first  ser- 
become  identified  with  the  Church  raons  that  were  preached  at  Rome 
of  Rome.  Yet  however  plausible  were  in  Greek.  .  .  .  Mean- 
such  a  belief  may  be,  it  finds  no  while,  however,  though  Greek  con- 
support  in  history.  Rome  itself,  tinued  to  be  the  natural,  if  not  the 
under  the  Emperors,  is  well  de-  sole  language  of  tlie  Roman  Church, 
scribed  as  a  Greek  city,  and  the  seeds  of  Latin  Christianity  were 
Greek  was  its  second  language,  rapidly  developing  in  Africa.  .  .  . 
As  far  as  we  can  learn,  the  mass  Carthage,  the  .second  Rome,escaped 
of  the  poorer  population — to  which  the  Grccism  of  the  first.  In  Africa 
the  great  bulk  of  the  early  Chris-  Greek  was  no  longer  a  current  dia- 
tians  belonged — was  Greek  either  lect."  WesicoU,  Canon  of  New  Tes- 
in  descent  or  in  speech.  Among  lament,  244-247. 
the  names  of  the  fifteen  bishops  of  "^  "  Nothing  is  known  in  detail  of 
Rome,  up  to  the  close  of  the  the  origin  of  the  African  churches, 
second  century,  four  only  are  The  Donatists  classed  them  among 
Latin,  though  in  the  next  century  'tho.se  last  which  shall  be  first'; 
the  proportion  is  nearly  reversed,  and  Augustine  in  his  reply  merely 
When  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Roman  aflirms  that  '.some  bftrl)arian  na- 
Church,  he  wrote  in  (Jreek,  and  in  tions  eml)raced  Christianity  after 
tlie  long  Mst  of  salutations  to  its  .\frica,  .so  that  it  is  certain  that 
members,  with  which  the  epistle  Africa  was  not  the  last  to  believe.* 
is  concluded,  only  four  genuine  The  conces-sion  implies  that  Africa 
Latin  names  occur.  Sliortly  after-  was  late  in  being  evangelized, 
ward  Clement  wrote  to  the  Cor-  Tertullian  adtls  that  it  received 
inthian  Chtirch,  in  Greek,  in  the  the  gospel  from  Rome."  Westcott, 
name  of    the    Church    of    Rome;  Canon  of  New  Testament,  2^. 


80  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

persons  who  brought  them  the  gospel.  But  these  persons 
lived  at  a  period  early  euough  to  know  what  books  had  come 
from  the  apostolic  age,  and  books  of  recent  origin  could  not 
have  been  palmed  off  on  them  as  apostolic.  The  version  in- 
cluded all  of  our  present  New  Testament  books  except  He- 
brews, James  and  II.  Peter.  But  Hebrews  and  James  were 
both  in  the  Peshito  Syriac,  and  all  the  books  absent  from  that 
except  II.  Peter  were  present  in  this.  Consequently  we  find  the 
existence  of  every  book  of  the  New  Testament  except  II.  Peter 
attested  by  translations  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  They  were  translated  because  they  were  the  authori- 
tative books  of  the  churches,  and  they  were  authoritative  be- 
cause the  churches  believed  them  to  have  come  from  ajwstolic 
hands.  Is  it  possible  that  these  churches  could  have  been 
totally  mistaken  about  such  facts  when  the  interval  had  been 
so  short? 
Why  no  When  we  remember  that  the  gospel  was  preached  and  the 

sio^'nsiriec- churches  were  established  before  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
ond  cen-  ^y^^x  in  all  the  nations  of  the  Roman  empire,  we  are  led  to  in- 
*"'^"  quire  why  so  few  translations  of  the  Christian  scriptures  were 

then  made.  But  the  small  number  should  excite  no  surprise. 
In  the  first  place,  the  Greek  language  was  the  universal  lan- 
gwA^v  of  literature,  known  and  read  by  educated  persons 
throughout  the  world  except  in  Africa.  In  the  second  place, 
most  of  the  nations  not  closely  connected  with  Greece  or  with 
Rome  were  as  yet  without  an  alphabet.  Even  in  Egypt  the 
Christian  translators  were  compelled,  as  we  have  stated,  to  en- 
large and  otherwise  change  the  native  alphabet,  and  in  Ar- 
menia as  well  as  among  the  Goths,  an  alphabet  had  to  be  in- 
vented.* Moreover,  in  all  countries  the  masses  of  the  people 
were  unable  to  read,  and  were  dependent  for  knowledge  of 
books  on  the  public  and  private  readings  of  their  teachers. 
The" latter  couhl  translate  as  they  read,  and  thus  tlie  demand 
for  written  translations  was  delayed.  This  universal  spread 
of  the  Greek  language,  which  had  resulted  from  the  conquests 
of  Alexander  and  tlio  dominion  of  his  successors,  served  three 
important  purposes  of  divine   providence:  it   facilitated  the 

'  See  page  37. 


NEAV  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  81 

preaching  of  the  gospel  aiitl  the  intercourse  of  remote  Chris- 
tian communities  with  one  anotlier ;  it  obviated  for  some  gen- 
erations the  necessity  of  translating  the  scripture  into  the  ver- 
nacular tongues;  and  it  led  to  the  composition  of  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  in  the  language  best  adapted  of  all  that 
had  been  s|)oken  among  men  to  the  expression  of  the  nicer 
distinctions  in  religious  thought. 


CHAPTER   III. 


EVIDENCE    FROM   QUOTATIONS. 


Nature  of  Quotations  from  a  book,  like  copies  of  it,  catalogues  of  its 

dencr        parts,  and  translations  of  it,  are  self-evident  proofs  of  its  pre- 
vious existence,  seeing  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  quotations 
from  a  book  not  yet  written. 
Quotations        Quotations  are  divided  into  three  distinct  classes  : 
c  asbi  J    Those    in    which     the  words    quoted   are  credited    by 

name  to  the  book  whence  they  are  taken,  or  to  its  author. 
These  are  called  express  quotations. 

II.  Those  in  which  the  source  of  the  quotation  is  not 
given.     These  are  called  anonymous  quotations. 

III.  Those  in  which  an  idea,  a  figure  of  speech,  or  a  form 
of  expression,  is  borrowed  from  another  writer  without  credit. 
These  are  variously  styled  coincidences,  allusions,  reminis- 
cences; but  they  are  really  quotations  from  memory,  and  we 
think  it  better  to  treat  them  as  such. 

As  we  proceed,  we  shall  refer  to  these  classes  of  quotations 

by  their  numbers. 

Foroeof  In  the  second  and  third  classes,  and  especially  in  the  third, 

third  class-  *'^^  ^^^^  ^''^*   ^  quotation  is  actually  made  is   usually  a  matter 

«*  of  probability,  not  often  one  of  certainty.     It  depends  on  the 

probability  that  two  writers  used   the  words,  ideas,  or  figures 

of  speech   in  question,  independently  <>f  <'ach  other;   and  the 

degree  of  this  probability  depends  upon   tin;  character  of  the 

matter  used   by   them   in  comjiiou.     Such    ideas,   figures  and 

phrases  as  an;  commonplace,  and  such  as  have  become  common 

property,  may  be  used  in  common  by  two  writers  uuac<|uainted 

with  each  other's  productions;  but  such  as  are  strikingly  char- 

(8'2) 


NEW  TESTAMENT  ROOKS.  83 

acteristic  of  a  certain  author  are  known,  when  found  in  the 
works  of  another,  to  be  borrowed  property.  The  identitieation 
depends  on  the  well  known  fact,  that  as  every  man  has  his  own 
peculiar  features,  so  every  writer  of  any  originality  has  his  own 
peculiar  mode  of  expression,  and  his  peculiar  thoughts.  For  ^""■"■**'''° 
example,  if  in  the  works  of  any  writer  since  Shakespeare  there 
should  be  found  the  words,  "  to  be,  or  not  to  be,  that  is  the 
question,"  there  could  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  he  obtained 
them  directly  or  indirectly  from  Shakespeare's  Hamlet.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  they  should  be  found  in  the  works  of  some 
author  previous  to  Shakespeare,  it  would  be  morally  certain  that 
Shakespeare  had  borrowed  them  from  him.  In  like  manner  the 
charact^'ristic  phraseology,  figures  of  speech,  or  thoughts  of  any 
New  Testament  writer,  when  found  uncredited  in  the  work  of 
another  author,  furnish  proof  that  the  latter  borrowed  directly 
or  indirectly  from  the  former,  except  when  the  New  Testament 
writer  can  be  regarded  as  the  later  of  the  two. 

We  now  j)ropose  to  draw  upon   this  source  of  evidence,  byThecita- 
presenting  not  all,  but  a  few  of  the  quotations  made  from  the li^^g^j 
New  Testament  books  by  early  authors,  and  we  have  selected 
those  on   which   the   force  of  the  evidence   from  this  source 
chiefly  depends,  and  which  for  this  reason  should  be  familiar 
to  every  student  of  Evidences. 

The  writers   whom  we   have  already  mentioned,  such  asQ^o^^'o'is 
Origen,  Clement,  Tertullian,  and  others  of  a  later  date,  made  already 
many  and  copious  quotations  from  the  books  of  the  New  T('s- '"**°'*'*"^**- 
tament,  so  many  and   so  copious  that  the  opinion   has  some- 
times been  exj)ressed  that  the  whole  New  Testament,  if  it  were 
lost,  could   be  reproduced  out  of  the  Christian  writings  of  the 
first  four  centuries.     But  as  we  have  already  seen   that  these 
men   mention   the  books  by  name,  it  would   be  but  reiteration 
to  cite  their  (luotations.      It  is  needful  only  that  we  betrin  at'^**""^*"*' 

.  ,  •'  ®  point. 

the  point  of  time  already  reached  by  means  of  the  latter  evi- 
dence, and  cite  the  (piotations  made  by  writers  who  livrd  at  a 
still  earlier  period.  If  the  period  between  the  writers  just 
named  and  the  apostles  can  be  spanned  by  a  sueee.ssion  of 
writers  making  quotations  from  the  books  in  <|uestiou,  the  ex- 


84 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


IREN.EUS: 


istence  of  these  books  will  be  traced  to  the  age  of  the  apostles 

Ijy  evidence  absolutely  couclusive. 

We  begin  this  line  of  evidence  with  Iremeus,  a  writer  who 

mentions  so  many  of  the  New  Testament  books  by  name  that 

he  might  almost  be  classed  with  those  who  have  left  catalogue. 

The  exact   date  of  his  birth  is  not  known,  nor  is  that  of  his 

death;  but  both   are   iixed  Avithin  very  narrow  limits,  and  we 
hisperioJ;  adopt  OS  Certainly  quite  close  to  the  trutli  the  date  135  as  that 

of  his  birth,  and  200  as  that  of  his  death.'     Hf  speaks  of  hav- 
birthpiace;  ing  seen  Polycarp  in  Smyrna  in  his  early  youth,  and  from  this 

it  is  supposed   that  Smyrna,  or  some  adjacent  part    of  Asia 
home;        Minor  was   his  native  place."     Later  in   life  his  home  was  at 

Lyons,  in  Gaul,  where  he  was  made  a  Bishop  in  the  year  177. 
opportuiu-  pj.gyj^^jj,  iq  ]^{^  ordination  he  visited  Home  as  the  bearer  of  a 

ties. 

letter  from  certain  members  of  the  church  at  Lyons  who  were 
in  prison  and  awaiting  martyrdom,  to  the  Bishop  of  the  church 
at  Rome.'^  From  all  this  it  is  apparent  that  he  had  means  of 
knowing  what  books  of  tiie  New  Testament  were  in  use  within 
the  period  of  his  remembrance,  in  Asia  Minor,  in  CJaul  and  in 
Rome.     His  memory  reached  back  within  the  first  half  of  the 


'  These  are  the  figures  adopted 
by  Westcott  (Canon  of  New  TcMa- 
menl,  379)  while  Donaldson  {Arde- 
Nkene  Library,  Jni.  XVIII.,  XIX.), 
says  that  "the  general  date  as- 
signed to  his  birth  is  somewhere 
Ijetween  a.  d.  120  and  a.  d.  140," 
and  that'  "he  is  siippo.sed  to  have 
died  about  a.  d.  202." 

*  "  But  Polycarp  was  not  only  in- 
structed by  apostles,  and  conversed 
with  many  who  had  seen  Christ, 
but  WUH  also  by  apostles  in  Asia 
appointed  bishop  of  the  chin-ch  in 
Smyrna,  whom  I  also  saw  in  my 
early  youth,  for  he  tarried  a  very 
louK  time,  and,  when  a  very  old 
man,  gloriously  and  most  nobly 
suffering  martyrdom,  departed  this 
life,  having  always  taught  the 
things  which  he  had  learned  from 


the  apostles,  and  which  the  ehureh 
has  handed  down,  and  which  alone 
are  true."  Irenseus,  Against  Here- 
sies, 202,  2fi3. 

^"But  these  same  martyrs  rec- 
ommending also  Irenreus,  who 
was  then  a  presbyter  of  the  church 
at  Lyons,  to  the  Bishop  of  liome, 
before  mentioued,  bear' abundant 
testimony  in  his  favor,  as  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  show  :  '  We  pray 
and  desire,  father  Eleutherus,  that 
you  may  rejoice  in  (iod  in  all 
thin^rs  and  always.  We  have  re- 
(jueste(l  our  brother  and  com- 
jtaniou,  In-nanis,  to  carry  this 
ejjistle  to  you,  and  we  exhort  you 
to  consider  hira  as  commended  to 
you  as  a  zealous  fidlower  of  the 
testament  ftf  Christ.'  "  Kusebius, 
ErclesiaHlical  Hintory,  v.  4. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  85 

second  century.  His  quotations  and  citations  may  be  classified 
a.s  follows: 

1.  He  says  that  what  the  Apostles  first  preached  they  after- His  account 
ward  "  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  ;  "  that  they  were  Gospels""' 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  before  they  prcaclu'd  ;  that  Matthew 
"  issued  a  written  gospel  "  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preach- 
ing at  Rome;  that  Mark,  "the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Peter,"  wrote  %vhat  bad  been  preached  by  Peter;  that  Luke, 
"  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  in  a  book  the  gospel  preached 
by  him  ;  "  and  that  "  John,  the  disciple  who  had  leaned  on  the 
Lord's  breast,  published  a  gospel  during  his  residence  in  Ephe- 
6US. "'  He  further  claims  that  the  ground  on  which  these 
Gospels  rest  was  so  firm  that  even  the  heretics  against  whom 
he  wrote  and  whose  doctrines  were  condemned  by  them,  were 
constrained  to  acknowledge  them,  some  acknowledging  one, 
and  some  another."     He  makes  other  remarks  concerning  the 

■  "  We  have  learned  from  none  wards,  John,  the  disciple  of  the 
others  the  plan  of  our  salvation,  Lord,  who  had  also  leaned  upon 
than  from  those  througli  whom  his  breast,  did  himself  publish  a 
the  gospel  has  come  down  to  us,  gospel  during  his  residence  at 
which  they  did  at  one  time  pro-  Ephesus  in  Asia."  Against  Here- 
claim   in    public,   and    at    a    later  sics,  iii.  1. 

period,  by  the  will  of  God,  handed  ■^''So  firm  is  the  grouncl  on 
down  to  us  in  the  .Scriptures  to  l)e  which  these  gospels  rest,  that  the 
the  ground  and  pillar  of  our  faith,  very  heretics  themselves  l)ear  wit- 
.  .  .  For  after  our  Lord  rose  ness  to  them,  and,  starting  from 
from  the  dead  the  apostles  were  these  each  one  of  them  endeavors 
invested  with  power  from  on  high  to  establish  his  own  peculiar  doc- 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  came  down,  trine.  For  the  Ebionites,  "who  use 
were  filled  from  all  his  gifts  and  Matthew's  gospel  only,  are  con- 
had  perfect  knowledge.  .  .  .  futed  out  of  this  very  same,  niak- 
Matthew  also  issued  a  written  gos-  ing  false  suppositious  in  regard  to 
pel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  the  Lord.  But  ]\hircion,  mutilating 
own  dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul  that  according  to  Luke,  is  proved 
were  preaching  at  Rome  and  laying  to  be  a  blasphemer  of  the  only  ex- 
the  foundations  of  the  church,  isting  God  from  those  pas-sages 
After  their  departure,  Mark,  the  which  he  still  retains.  Those  again 
disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  who  .separate  .Tesus  from  Christ, 
did  also  han<l  down  to  us  in  writ-  alleging  that  Christ  remained  im- 
ing  what  had  been  preached  by  passible,  but  if  was  .lesus  who  suf- 
Peter.  Luke  also,  the  companion  fered,  preferring  the  gospel  by 
of  Paul,  recorded  in  a  book  the  Mark,  if  they  reail  it  with  the  love 
gospel   preached    by   him.     .\fter-  of    truth,    may   have    their  errors 


86 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


His  quota- 
tians  from 
Acts, 


from  raul' 
3:pistlfc<i, 


Gospels  equally  explicit,  and  his  quotations  from  them  are  very 
numerous. 

2.  Irenteus  makes  many  quotations  from  Acts,  and  repeat- 
edly speaks  of  it  as  a  work  of  Luke.  For  instance,  he  quotes 
the  account  of  Simon  the  sorcerer  (Acts  viii.  8-11)  as  the 
words  of  Luke ; '  he  credits  in  the  same  way  the  account  of 
Paul's  interview  with  Jesus  on  the  way  to  Damascus  ;'  ^^nd  he 
cites  the  passages  in  Acts  where  the  author  uses  the  first  per- 
son, as  proof  that  Luke  was  with  Paul  on  the  occasions  re- 
ferred to.^ 

'        3.  Twelve  of  Paul's  Epistles   are  quoted  by   this  author, 
some  of  them  many  times,  and  the  authorship*  of  all  is  espe- 

l 
rectified.  Those,  moreover,  who  am  Jesus  whom  thou  persecutest ;' 
follow  Valentinus,  making  copious  and  then  to  Ananias,  regarding 
use  of  that  according  to  John  to  him:  'Go  thy  way;  for  he  is  a 
illustrate  their  conjunctions,  shall  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to  bear  my 
be  proved  to  be  totally  in  error  by  name  among  the  Gentiles,  and 
meansof  this  very  gospel."  Against  kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel.'" 
Heresies,  III.  7.  Against  Heresies,  III.  15,  1. 

*  "Simon,  the  Samaritan,  was  ^"But  that  this  Luke  was  in- 
that  magician  of  whom  Luke,  the  separable  from  Paul  and  his  fellow- 
disciple  and  follower  of  the  apos-  laborer  in  the  gospel,  he  himself 
ties,  says.  '  But  there  was  a  certain  clearly  evinces,  not  as  a  matter  of 
man,  Simon  by  name,  who  l)efore  boasting,  but  as  bound  to  do  so  by 
time  used  magical  arts  in  that  city,  the  truth  itself.  For  he  says  that 
andledaway  the  people  of  Samaria,  when  Barnabas  and-  John  who 
declaring  that  he  himself  was  some  was  called  Mark,  had  parted  com- 
great  one,  to  whom  they  all  gave  pany  from  Paul  and  sailed  to 
heed,  from  the  least  to  the  great-  Cyprus,  'we  came  to  Troas';  and 
est,'  "  etc.    Against  Heresies,  I.  2.3, 1.    when  Paul  had  lieheld  in  a  dream 

■■'  "  But  again,  we  allege  the  same  a  man  of  Macedonia,  saying, '  Come 
heresies  against  tho.se  who  do  not  into  Macedonia,  Paul,  and  help 
recognize  Paul  Jis  an  aposthi ;  that  us;'  '  immediatc^ly,'  he  says,  'we 
they  should  either  reject  tlu;  other  endeavored  to  go  into  Macedonia, 
words  of  the  gospel  which  we  have  understanding  that  the  Lord  had 
come  to  know  through  Luke  alone,  called  us  to  preach  the  gospel  unto 
and  not  make;  n.se  ol  them  ;  or  else,  them."  In  this  manner  he  pro- 
if  they  do  receive  all  of  these  they  ceeds  to  cite;  all  the  passages  in 
must  necessarily  admit  also  that  which  the  author  of  Acts  uses  the 
testimony  roncerning  Paul  when  i)ronoun  of  the  first  person  plural, 
he  tells  us  that  the  Lord  spoke  at  Against  Heresies,  III.  14,  1. 
first  to  him  from  lieaven:  'Saul,  ♦The  citations  necessary  to  verify 
Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me?    I    thisstatement  are  too  numerous  for 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  87 

cially  ascribed  to  Paul.  The  two  not  thus  quoted  are  Phile- 
mon and  Hebrews.  The  former  he  neither  quotes  nor  men- 
tions— an  omission  readily  accounted  for  by  the  brevity  and 
personal  character  of  this  document.  Of  the  latter  there  is  no 
mention  in  his  extant  writings,  but  Eusebius  gives  a  list  of 
some  of  his  works  now  lost,  in  one  of  which  this  Epistle  was 
both  named  and  quoted  ;  '  while  Photius,  a  writer  of  the  ninth 
century,  quotes  a  still  earlier  writer  as  saying  that  Irenseus 
denied  the  Pauline  authorship  of  Hebrews.^  The  sum  of  the 
evidence  then  is,  that  Irenajus  made  use  of  all  of  the  Epistles 
commonly  ascribed  to  P.iul  except  Philemon. 

4.  Irenjeus  quotes  by  name  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, ^  and  ^'■''™ '^® 
the  First  and  Second  of  John.*     The  Third  of  John,  and  thcEpisUes.* 
Epistles  of  James  and  Jude  he   neither  mentions  nor  (juotes. 
In  two  places  he  makes  a  quotation  of  the  third  class  from  the 

our  space,  but  they  can  be  readily  venient  as  a  brief  designation  of 

found  by  glancing  through  the  foot  this  group  of  epistles, 

notes  of  the  English  Version  of  the  *  "Peter    says    in    his    epistles, 

works  of   Irena.>us,   and   they   are  'Whom,    not  seeing,   ye  love;   in 

collected  in  a  group  in  Lardner's  whom,    though    now   ye  see   him 

Credibility,  III.  103,  164.  not,  ye  have  believed,  ye  shall  re- 

'  In  naming  some  of  the  minor  joice   with   joy   unspeakable'"     I. 

works  of  Irenteus,  Eusebius  says:  Peter i.  8.     Against  Heresieii,l\.9,2. 

"There  is  a  book  also  of  various  *  After    quoting  a  statement  of 

disputes,   in   which    he   mentions  John  in  his  gospel,  Iremeus  adds: 

tike  epistle  to.  the  Hebrews."     Ec-  "  For  this  reason  also  he  has  tes- 

cU-siaatU-al  nistory,  \.  26.  tified   tons  in  his  epistle:  'Little 

'^  "  Moreover,  l)y  Photius  we  are  children,  it  is  the  last  time;  and  as 

informed  that  Stephen  Ciobar  writes  ye  have  heard  that  antichrist  dotli 

thus:  '  Ilippolytus and  IrenM'ussay,  come,  now  have  many  antichrists 

the  epistle  of   Paid  to  the  Hebrews  apj)eared  ;  whereby  we  know  that 

is  not  his';  by  which,  perhaps,  we  it  is  the  last  time' "  (I.  .lohn  ii.  IS.) 

need  not  understand  that  Irena-us  Ih.  iii.  .5.     "These  are  they  against 

liad  expressly  said  so  anywhere."  whom  the  Lord  has  cautioned  us 

Lardner,  Crvdibilitii,  II.  IK.').  beforehand;  and  bis  disciple,  in  his 

•''  Hy   this   expression    is    meant  epistle    already    mentioned,    toni- 

the  epistles  of  .lames,  Peter,  .lohn  mands  us  to  avoid  them  when  he 

and  .fude,  called  catholic, (general)  says:  '  For  many  deceivers  are  en- 

l»ecause  they  were  not  addressed  tered  into  the  worlil  who  confess 

(except  II.  and   III.  .John)  to  any  not  that  .Tcsus  Christ  is  come  in 

I>articular  person  or  congregation,  the  flesh'"  (II.  John  vii.  8.)  lb. 

Tlie  expression    originated   at   an  iii.  S. 
early    period,    and    is    very    con- 


88  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  In  trying  to  show  that  Adam  died 
the  same  day  that  lie  ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  he  states  as  the 
opinion  of  some,  that  he  died  within  a  thousand  years,  and  he 
argues  that  since  "  a  day  of  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years," 
he  died  within  the  time  stated  in  the  sentence.'  In  another 
place  he  assumes  that  the  six  days  of  creation  are  a  prophecy 
of  the  earth's  duration,  and  argues  that  as  "  the  day  of  the 
Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years,"  in  six  thousand  years  the  world 
will  come  to  an  end.^  This  bold  and  startling  statement  that 
"  a  day  of  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years  "  is  found  in  almost 
the  identical  words  in  II.  Peter  iii.  8,  and  it  is  there  employed 
in  connection  with  the  very  subject  to  which  Irenjeus  in  the 
last  instance  applies  it,  the  end  of  the  world.  The  thought  is 
strikingly  original,  and  it  could  not  have  occurred  independ- 
ently to  Irenaius  and  the  author  of  II.  Peter.  We  conclude 
then  that  it  was  borrowed  by  the  former,  and  that  he  not  only 
knew  this  Epistle,  but  accepted  it  as  an  authority  on  this  high 
subject,  the  mysterious  relation  which  God  sustains  to  tirae.'^    In 

*  "  And    there   are   some,  ajjain,  is  evident,  therefore,  that  they  will 

who  relegate  the  death  of  Adam  to  come  to  an  end  at  the  sixth  thou- 

the  thousandth   year;   for  since  a  sand  years."     lb.  v.  28,  3. 
day  of  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand       '  The    only    ground    for    douht- 

years,    he   did    not    overstep    the  ing,  as  many  eminent  authors  do, 

thousand    years,  but   died    within  that  Irena-us  here  quotes  II.  Peter, 

them,  thus  bearing  out  the  son-  is  based  on  the  possibility  of  his 

tence  of  his  sin."     J7>.  v.  23,  2.  having  obtained  the  thought  from 

*"For  in  as  many  days  as  this  Psalnj  xc.  4.  But  the  thought  of 
world  was  made,  in  so  many  thou-  the  Psalmist  is  quite  diflerent  from 
sand  years  shall  it  be  concluded,  that  of  Peter  and  Iren:rus.  The 
-Vnd  for  this  reason  tlie  Scripture  latter  si)caks  of  God's  absolute  re- 
says:  Thus  the  heavens  and  the  lation  to  time,  and  interjjreta  his 
earth  were  finished,  and  all  their  language  accordingly;  while  the 
adornment,  and  (rod  brought  to  a  Psalmist  is  considering  (Jod's  long 
conclusion  upon  the  sixth  flay  the  existence  iii  the  jiast,  and  speaks 
works  that  he  had  made,  and  (!oil  of  it  as  being  so  long  that  a  thou- 
rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  sand  years  dwindle  in  comparison 
his  works.  This  is  an  account  of  1o  the  length  (»f  a  day  or  a  watch 
th(!  things  formerly  created,  as  also  in  the  night.  ^Moreover,  tlie  words 
it  is  a  prophecy  of  what  is  to  come,  of  Iremcus  are  almost  identical 
For  the  <lay  of  the  Lonl  is  as  a  with  those  of  Peter,  and  they  vary 
thousand  years;  and  in  six  days  materially  from  those  of  the  Psalm- 
created  things  were  complcte<l :  it  ist.     "  A   day  of   the  Lonl    is  as  a 


NEW  TESTAMENT  HOOKS.  89 

the  use  which  he  makes  of  the  passage  he  tulh)ws  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, a  writer  yet  to  be  mentioned.' 

5.  Our    author  makes  many   quotations  from  the  Apoca- *"'^ '^""^ 
1  11  -1       •  I      4         1     X  1  TT      1  ^''^  Apoca- 

lypse, and  he  ascribes  it  to  the  Apostle  John.     He  also  statesiyp.se. 

approximately  its  date,  saying  that  it   was   written  "  toward 

the  end  of  Domitian's  reign."  '^     Domitian  died  A.  D.  96. 

We  now  see  that  Ireuaeus  quoted,  and  was  familiar  with  all  ^^'^''^  "o^ 

^  '  quoted  by 

the  books  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  three  short  Epis-tiim. 
ties,  IMiilomoii,  Jude  and  111.  John,  and  the  longer  Kpistle  (»f 
James.  As  his  own  personal  remembrance  reached  back  within 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  this  evidence  traces  all 
these  books  at  least  that  far.  But  his  opportunities  for  hifor- Jl^^j^""^'!^^^' 
mation  were  such  that  we  must  grant  for  his  evidence  even  Pothmus, 
more  than  this.  The  Bishop  of  Lyons  who  preceded  him,  and 
under  whom  he  held  the  office  of  presbyter,  wasPothinus,  who 
suffered  martyrdom  at  ninety  years  of  age  in  the  year  177.' 
He  was  consequently  thirteen  years  of  age  when  the  Apostle 
John  died  in  the  year  100,  and  his  memory  spanned  all  the 
period  between  that  event  and  the  mature  years  of  Irenjeus. 
He  must  have  known  whether  any  of  the  books  represented  as 
apostolic  had  come  into  existence  in  his  own  day  ;  and  his 
knowledge  on  this  subject  was  imparted  to  Irenaeus,  his  piipil 
and  subordinate.  Furthermore,  when  Irenaeus  was  a  boy  in 
Smyrna  he  saw  Polycarp,  who  was  instructed  by  Apostles,^  and'^''-^  «'t'^ 

PolycAFp. 

thousand  years,"  Ireiiicus.     "One  alnio.st  in  our  day,  toward  the  end 

day  with  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  of  Domitian's  reign."    Agaimt  Ilirc- 

years,"  Peter.     *'  A  tiiou.sand  years  sies,  V.  30,  3. 

in    thy  sight   is  but  as  yesterday  ^  "  Pothinus,  having   died    with 

when  it  is  past,  and  as  a  watch  in  the  otlier  martyrs  of  Gaul,  in  the 

the  night,"  Psalmist.  ninetieth  year  of  his  age,  was  suc- 

'  See    below,    under    quotations  oeeded  by  Irenseus  in  the  episoo- 

from  Justin  :>Iartyr.  pate  of  the  churcli  at  Lyons,"  Euse- 

*"We  will  not,  however,   incur  \ni\ii,EccLHin)flicalIIidonj,\'.r,.  Tiiis 

the  risk  of  pronouncing  positively  occurred,  as  the  same  writer  states, 

as  to  tlie  names  of  antichrist;  for  in    the    seventeenth    year  of    the 

if  it  w»Te  necessary  that  his  name  reign  uf  Marcus  Antoninus,  which 

should  be  revealed  at  the  present  was  a.  d.  177.     lb.  v.,  Preliminary, 

time,    it    would    have    been    an-  *  "  Wat  Polycarp    also  was    not 

nounced  by  liim  who  beheld  the  only    instructed   by   apostles,   and 

apocalyptic  vision.     For  that  was  conversed    with    many   who    had 

seen  no  very  long  time  since,  but  seen  Christ,  but  was  also  by  apos- 


90  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

who  had  conversed  with  many  persons  who  had  seen  Jesus. 
He  had  also  conversed  with  another  person  whom  he  styles  "  a 
certain  presbyter,"  who  had  been  taught  by  men  who  had  seen 
the  Apostles.'  From  his  boyhood,  then,  he  had  known  the 
New  Testament  books  as  they  were  known  by  men  who  had 
seen  the  Apostles,  and  this  renders  it  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable  that  any  of  them  had  originated  since  the  apostolic 
age. 
Hisrever-  Before  wc  Icavc  the  writings  of  Tremens  it  may  be  well  to 

eiiceforthe  i       xt         m 

New  Testa-  notice  the  reverence  paid  to  the  New  Testament  books  by  the 
?''"\  disciples  of  his  day,  as  it  appears  in  the  titles  which  he  famil- 
iarly  applies  to  them.  He  calls  them  "  the  Sacred  Scriptures," 
"  the  Oracles  of  God."  ^  He  speaks  of  the  New  Testament  as 
containing  "the  writings  of  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apostles," 
as  the  Old  Testament  contains  "the  law  and  the  prophets."^ 
He  holds  these  Scriptures  to  be  perfect,  since  they  were  spoken 
by  the  Word  of  God  and  his  Spirit ;  *  and  he  declares  that  no 

ties  in  Asia  appointed  bishop  of  sions and  parables  whenever  found, 
tl)e  church  in  Smyrna,  whom  I  to  adapt  the  oracles  of  God  to  their 
also  saw  in  my  early  youth,  for  he  baseless  fictions"  /^.i.8, 2.  "These 
tarried  a  very  long  time,  and,  when  things  are  such  as  fall  under  our 
a  very  old  man,  gloriously  and  observation,  and  arc  clearly  and  un- 
most  nobly  suffering  martyrdom,  ambiguously  in  express  terms  set 
departed  this  life,  having  always  forth  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  And 
taught  the  things  which  he  had  therefore  the  parables  ought  not  to 
learned  from  the  apostles,  and  be  adapted  to  ambiguous  expres- 
which  alone  are  true."  Arjaimt  Here-  sions  "  Jb.  ii.  27,  1 . 
gieH  iii.  3,  4.  ^  "  -'^"d  it  is  not  only  from  the 

'"As  I  have  heard  from  a  cer-  writings  of  the  evangelists  and  the 
tain  presbyter,  who  had  heard  it  apostles  that  they  endeavor  to  de- 
from  those  wlio  had  seen  the  apos-  rive  proofs  for  their  opinions  by 
ties,  and  from  those  who  had  been  perverse  interpretations  and  de- 
their  disciples,  the  imnishment  in  ceitful  expositions:  they  deal  in 
the  Scripture  was  suliicicnt  for  the  the  same  manner  with  the  law  and 
ancients  in  regard  towliat  tiieydid  the  prophets,  which  contain  many 
without  the  Spirit's  guidance."  lb.  parables  and  allegories  that  can 
iv.  'i7,  1.  frequently  be  drawn  into  various 

*"  In  like  manner  do  these  per-    senses,  according  to   the   kind   of 
sons  patch  together  old  wives'  fa-    exegesis  to    which    they   are  Bub- 
bles, and   then  endeavor  by  vio-   jected."     ]b.  i.  I',,  (i. 
lentiy  drawing    away  from    their       ♦"  We  should  leave  those  thinga 
proper  connection,  words,  expres-    of  that  nature  [things  we  can  not 


STJN 

ktvr: 


Kf:\V  TESTA.MKNT  HOOKS.  91 

light  punishment  awaits  him  whf)  either  adds  to  or  subtracts 
anything  from  them.'  Is  it  possible  that  Ijooks  thus  esteemed 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  and  believed  to  have  been 
in  use  in  the  church  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  could  have 
been  written  but  a  few  years  previous? 

We  next  go  back  to  Justin,  a  native  of  the  ancient  citv  of:J)^ 
Shechem  in  Palestine,  which  was  called  Flavia  Neapolis  by  the 
Romans,  and  is  now  called  Xablus  by  the  Arabs."     His  nation- 
ality was  uncertain.     He  calls  the  Samaritans  his  people,'*  but  ^J^^'"'^" 
this  may    be  only    because  he    was  born    among  thom.     His 
name,  and  that   of  his  father  and  his  grandfiither,  are  Roman,  >'"'^"s<'- 
indicating  the  probability  of  a  Roman  lineage.     His  principal 
writinecs  which  have  comedown  to  us  are  two  Apologies,  andaP""^'P"i 

writings, 

Dialogue  with  one  Tr}'pho,  a  Jew.  One  of  the  former  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  and  the  other  to  the 
Roman  Senate.  The  Dialogue,  which  is  by  far  the  most  elab- 
orate of  his  works,  is  an  attempt  to  state  and  to  answer  the 
arguments  of  the  Jews  against  the  Christian  faith  ;  and  the 
Apologies  are  remonstrances  against  the  persecution  of  Christ- 
ians by  the  Roman  authorities.     The  exact  date  of  his  birth  is 

not  known,  but  it  was  not  much  later  than  the  beginning  of*"'*P*"°** 
'  °  ®       of  acuvuy. 

explain]  to  God  who  created   us,  tus   Cjcsar,  and    to  his   son,  Ver- 

being  most  properly  assured  that  issimus,    the  philosopher,   and  to 

the  Scriptures  are  indeed  perfect,  Lucius,  the  philosopher,  the  uat- 

since    they   were    spoken  by  the  ural  son  of  Ca?sar  and  the  adopted 

Word  of  God  and  his  Spirit  "    Ih.  son   of  Pius,  a  lover  of  learning, 

ii-  28,  2.  and  to  the  sacred  senate,  with  the 

'  Speaking  of    a  change  in   the  whole   people   of  the   Romans,  I, 

number  6t;0  (Rev.  xiii.  IS)  which  .Justin,    the    son    of    Priscus   and 

had  been  made  by  some  heretics,  grandson  of  Bacchius,  natives  of 

he  says:  "  Now  in  the  first  place,  Flavia  Neapolis  in  Palestine,  pre- 

it  is  loss  to  Winder  from  truth,  and  sent  this  address  and  petition  in 

to  imagine  that  as  being  the  ca.se  behalf  of  those  of  all  nations  who 

which  is  not;  then  again,  as  there  are  unjustly  hated  and   wantonly 

shall  be  no  light  punishment  on  abused,  my.self  being  one  of  them." 

him    who  either  adds   to  or  sub-  First  Apology,  Addrexn. 

tracts    anything    from    Scripture,  '  "  For  I  gave  no  thought  to  any 

under  that    such   a   person   must  of  my  peojjle,  that  is  the  Samari- 

nece.ssarily  fall."     Ih.  v.  .SO,  1.  tans,  when   I   had  a  communica- 

^"To  the  emperor  Titus  /Elius  tion  with  Ca?8ar,  but  stated  that 

Adrianus  Antoninus   Pius  .\ugus-  thev  were  wronp  in  trusting  to  the 


92  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

the  second  eentur}'/  The  date  of  his  death  is  involved  in 
equal  uncertainty,  but  that  of  his  first  Apology  is  stated  in  the 
work  itself  as  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  and  it  is  agreed  among  scholars  that  it  was  written 
in  146  or  147.^  He  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome,^  and  from 
this  circumstance  he  is  usually  called  Justin  Martyr.  In  re- 
gard to  these  dates  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  to 
know  that  he  lived  through  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 
In  his  dialogue  he  gives  an  interesting  account  of  his  own 

He  seeks  early  inquiries  on  the  subject  of  religion.  Being  desirous  of 
obtaining  a  knowledge  of  God,  he  sought  personal  instruction 
from  Greek  philosophers.  His  first  teacher  was  a  Stoic.  After 
spending  much  time  with  him  and  learning  but  littk^,  he  re- 
sorted to  a  Peripatetic,  then  to  a  Pythagorean,  and  finally  to  a 
Platonist.  Under  the  latter  he  says  that  his  mind  was  "fur- 
nished with  wings,"  and  that  he  was  elated  with  the  thought 
that  he  would  soon  look  upon  God;  but  at  this  juncture,  while 

and  finds  enjoying  a  solitary  walk  by  the  seashore  he  met  an  aged  Chris- 
tian through  whose  conversation  he  was  brought  to  the  true 
knowledge  of  God."*  He  was  the  more  easily  converted  on 
account  of  his  previous  knowledge  of  the  patience  with  which 
Christians  endured    persecution.^     From    this- time  he  went 

magician  Simon  of  their  own  na-  pate  and  solve  the  difficulty." 
tion,  who,  they  say,  is  God  above  First  Apol.  c.  46.  Westcott,  follow- 
all  power  and  authority  and  ing  Dr.  Ilort,  gives  the  exact  dale 
might."     Dialogue,  c.  120.  as  146  (Canon  of   N.  T.  98,  n.  1), 

'  See  Westcott  on  the  Canon,  p.  and  the  author  of  the  infidel  work 

95,  98,   n.   1,  and   the   authorities  called  Supernatural  Keligion,makes 

quoted  by  Lardner,  Credibility  II.  it  no  later  than  147.     Vol.  i.  284. 

112,  116.  '  An  interesting  account  of   his 

'  "  But   lest  some  should,  with-  martyrdom  by  an  unknown  writer 

out  reason  and  for  the  perversion  has  come  down  to  us,  and  an  Eng- 

of  what  we   teach,  maintain  that  lish  version  of  it  may  be  found  in  the 

we  say  that  Christ  was  born  one  Ante-Nicene    Christian    Li])rary, 

hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  under  vol.  II.  367. 

Cyrenius,    and    subsequently,    in  *  Dialogue  c.  ii.-viii. 

the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate,  taught  '■'  "  For    I    myself,  too,   when    I 

what  we  say  he  taught ;  and  shoiild  was  delighting  in  the  doctrines  of 

cry  out  against   us  as  thoiigli  all  Platd,  and    heard    the   CUirisfians 

men   who   were   born   before  him  slandered,  and  saw  them  fearless 

were   irresponsible,  let   us  antici-  of   death  and  of  all  other  things 


Him 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  93 

about  in  the  garb  of  a  philosopher,  contending  earnestly  for  "is  later 

...  .  •    11      •       V?   1  '   1        career. 

the  gospel  in  various  countries,  especially  in  iLphesus  and  at 
Rome.  According  to  Eusebius,  "  he  was  the  most  noted  of 
those  who  flourished  in  those  times." ' 

As  Justin's  argument   in  all  three  of  his  works  pertains  ^® 'i""**' 

,.      .    T  /.     1         1  II  1  '*^®  Gospels 

not  to  the  doctrine  or  discipline  ot  the  church,  but  to  the  per- chiefly. 
son  and  character  of  Jesus,  and  to  the  moral  status  of  Chris- 
tians, his  quotations  from  the  New  Testament  are  necessarily 
confined  almost  entirely  to  the  gospel  narratives.  From  these 
he  makes  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  quotations  setting 
forth  all  the  characteristic  teachings  of  Jesus,  and  nearly  all  of 
the  prominent  events  of  his  life.  For  a  very  obvious  reason 
he  nowhere  mentions  any  of  our  gospels  by  the  name  of  its 
author;  for  the  author's  name  would  amount  to  nothing  ^^''^h ^"' "°°^' 
the  heathen  emperor  or  the  unbelieving  Jew ;  but  he  designates 
the  books  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  them  their  full  weight  of 
authority.  He  refers  to  them  constantly  as  the  sources  of  his  in- 
formation and  the  authority  for  Christian  ordinances;  and  he 
designates  them  by  such  titles  as  these:  "The  Gospel,"  " The '^»^« "•^«' 

.  •  ^  he  gives 

Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  "  The   Memoirs  composed  by  the  them. 
Apostles,  which  are   called   Gospels,"  "  The  Memoirs  which 
were  draw^n  up  by  His  Apostles  and  those  who  foliowt'd  them." 
There  arc  sixteen   instances  of  this  kind,  two  in  the   First 
Apology,  and  fourteen  in  the  Dialogue.'     Jiy  an  examination 

which    are    counted   fearful,    per-  the  .\po.stle.s,  iii  the  memoirs  com- 

ceived  that  it  was  impossihh'  that  posed   In-  them,   whieli  an-  called 

they  could  be  living  in  wickedness  Gospels,  have  thus  delivered  to  us 

and  plca.sure."  .SVroH<i.l;x>/o(7.i/,  c.  12.  what  was  enjoined  on  them;  that 

'  "  Hut    Justin     was    the     most  Jesus   took    bread,   and   when    he 

noted  of   tho.se  who  flourished  in  had  given  thanks,  8ai<l :  'This  do 

those  limes,  who,  in  the  guise  of  a  yo  in  remembrance  of  me;  this  is 

philosopher,  preached  the  truth  of  my    body ; '    and    that,  after    the 

God,  and  contended  for  the  faith  same   manner,   having    taken   the 

also  in  his  writings."     EccU'k.  HiM.  cup    and    given    thanks,  he  said  : 

^V.  11.  '  This  is  my  blood  ; '  and  gave  it  to 

'  "Among  us  the  prince  f)f   the  them    alone."     Th.   c.   6(».     In   de- 

wickcd  spirits  is  called  the  serpent,  .scribing  the  regular  order  of  serv- 

and  Satan,  and  the  devil,  as  you  ice  in   the  meetings  of  the  Chris- 

cc.n    learn    by    looking    into    our  tians,  "  on  the  day  called  Sunday," 

writings."     First  Apnl.  v.2ii.     "For  he    says,    "The    memoirs    of    the 


94 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


of  these  passages,  copied  in  the  foot  note  below,  it  will  be  seen 

that  while  Justin  names  the  title  Gospels  as  being  in  common 

His  favorite  ^jse  jjg  prefers  the  title  Memoirs,  and  uses  it  more  frequently 

than  all  others.     In  this  he  showed  excellent  judgment,  and  at 


apostles,  or  the  writings  of  the 
prophets,  are  read  so  long  as  time 
permits."  lb.  c  67.  He  repre- 
sents Trypho  the  Jew  as  saying  to 
him  :  "  I  am  aware  tliat  your  pre- 
cepts in  the  so-called  Gospel  are 
so  wonderful  and  so  great,  that  I 
suspect  no  one  can  keep  them  ;  for 
I  have  carefully  read  them."  Dia- 
logue, c.  10.  "But  also  in  the  gos- 
pel it  is  written  that  He  said:  'All 
things  are  delivered  unto  me  by 
my  Father'  .  .  .  we  Hiid  it  re- 
corded in  the  memoirs  of  His  apos- 
tles that  He  is  the  Son  of  Gt)d." 
lb.  c.  100.  "For  they  that  saw 
Him  crucified  shook  their  heads 
each  one  of  them,  and  distorted 
their  lips,  and  twisting  their  noses 
to  each  other,  they  spoke  in  mock- 
ery the  words  which  are  recorded 
in  the  memoirs  of  His  apostles: 
He  said  he  was  the  Son  of  God  : 
let  him  come  down  ;  let  God  save 
him."  lb.  c.  101.  "He  kept 
silence  and  chose  to  return  no  an- 
swer to  any  one  in  the  presence  of 
Pilate,  as  has  been  declared  in  the 
memoirs  of  His  apostles."  Th.  c. 
102.  "  For  this  devil,  when  Jesus 
went  up  from  the  river  Jordan  at 
the  time  when  the  voice  spoke  to 
him,  'Thou  art  my  son  ;  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee,'  is  recorded 
in  the  memoirs  of  the  apostles  to 
have  come  to  Him  and  tempted 
Hiin."     .     .  "For  in  tiie  me- 

nioirs  wliich  I  say  were  drawn  up 
by  the  apostles  and  those  who  fol- 
lowed them,  it  is  recorded  that  his 
sweat    fell    down     like    drops    of 


blood  while  he  was  praying  and 
saying,  '  If  it  be  possible,  let  this 
cup  pass.'"  lb.  c.  103.  "And  this 
is  recorded  to  have  happened  in 
the  memoirs  of  His  apostles."  lb. 
c.  104.  "  For  I  have  already  proved 
that  he  was  the  only-begotten  of 
the  Father  of  all  things,  being  be- 
gotten in  a  peculiar  manner,  word 
of  power  by  Him,  and  having  aft- 
erward become  man  through  the 
virgin,  as  we  have  learned  from 
the  memoirs."  "  For  when  Christ 
was  giving  up  his  spirit  on  the 
cross,  he  said,  '  Father,  into  thy 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit,'  as  I 
have  learned  also  from  the  me- 
moirs." "And  these  words  are 
recorded  in  the  memoirs  :  '  unless 
your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.'  "  lb.  c.  105.  "He 
stood  in  the  inidst  of  his  brethren, 
the  apostles,  and  when  living  with 
them  sang  prai.ses  to  God,  as  is 
made  evident  in  the  memoirs  of 
the  apostles."  "And  when  it  is 
said  that  he  changed  the  name  of 
one  of  the  apostles  to  Peter;  and 
when  it  is  written  in  the  memoirs 
of  Him  that  this  so  happened,  as 
well  as  that  he  changed  the  names 
of  other  two  brothers,  the  sons  of 
Zebedop,  to  Boanerges."  lb.  c. 
100.  "An<l  that  He  would  rise 
again  on  the  third  day  after  the 
crucifixion,  it  is  written  in  the 
memoirs  that,  some  of  your  nation, 
questioning  him,  said,  show  us  a 
sign."     lb.  c.  107. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  95 

the  same  ti  me  lie  makes  it  more  certain  to  us  tliat  he  refers  to 
our  four  books;  for  they  are  in  tiie  strictest  sense  Memoirs,  or 
personal  reminiscences.  This  title  describes  them  exactly, 
while  the  title  Gospels  does  not.  Furthermore,  his  descrip- 
tion of  them  as  Memoirs  composed  by  the  apostles  and  their 
followers,  corresponds  precisely  to  the  authorship  of  our  four, 
two  of  them  having  been  composed  by  apostles,  and  the  other 
two  by  tiieir  followers.  Indeed  it  is  Avhen  he  is  about  to  make 
a  quotation  from  Luke  that  he  designates  the  latter  two  in  this 
way.^ 

These  citations  not  only  show  that  our  gospels  were  in  ex-  i^eductions 

•;  .       ,  ,  ,  .     from  his 

istence  and  in  use  in  the  days  of  Justin,  but  that  they  were  in  citations. 
wide  circulation  ajnong  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  that  they 
were  used  as  authorities  in  the  churches.  His  remark  to  the 
heathen  emperor,  "Among  us  the  prince  of  the  wicked  spirits 
is  called  the  serpent,  and  Satan,  and  the  devil,  as  you  can  learn 
by  looking  into  our  writings,"  shows  that  they  were  well 
known  among  the  heathen.  The  remark  of  Trypho,  "Your 
precepts  in  the  so-called  Gospel  are  so  wonderful  and  so  great, 
that  I  suspect  no  one  can  keep  them ;  for  I  have  carefully  read 
them,"  shows  that  they  were  well  known  among  unbelieving 
Jews  His  reference  to  them  as  authority  for  observing  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  his  statement  that  they  were  read,  together 
with  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  in  the  weekly  meetings  of 
the  churches,  shows  that  they  were  held  by  Christians  as 
authoritative  writings. 

Now,  as  all  this  testimony  is  given  by  a  man  who  spoke  Jq  conciusive- 

'  _  .  o  .'  I  jiess  of  this 

the  middle  of  the  seoond  century,  whose  memory  reached  back  evidence, 
to  near  the  beginning  of  that  century,  and  who  spoke  to  men 
with  memories  reaching  back  as  far  as  his  own,  it  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  those  Memoirs  had  come  down  to  them  from  the  age 
of  the  Apo.stles  with  the  credit  of  apostolic  authorship. 

Of  the  other  New  Testament  books  Justin  quotes  by  name"'-^""^"' 

,  ,,  4  ,  rni     .        1  .  ,  ,  „  .        ■  ,  l''e   .\pOCa- 

only  the  Apocalypse,      ihis  he  cites  by  the  name  of  its  author  iy,,so. 
to  show  that  the  prophetic  gifts  which  had  existed  among  the 
ancient  Jews  had  appeared  among  the  Christians.^     He  has 

'  Dijilo<;ue,  c.  103.  with   us   whose  name  was  John, 

*" There    was    u    certain     man   one  of  the  Apostles  of  ChriHt,  who 


96 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


and  Pauls  quotations  of  the  third  class  from  five  of  Paul's  epistles,  viz., 

Epistles.  1  '  ' 

Romans,  First  Corinthians,  Colossians,  Second  Thessalonians, 
and  Hebrews/  There  is  evidence,  moreover,  apart  from  quo- 
tations, that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  body  of  Paul's  epistles 
and  with  Acts,  in  the  fact  that  he  wrote  against  Marcion's 
heresy,^  the  most  striking  peculiarity  of  which  was  the  accept- 
ance of  the  writings  of  Paul  and  Luke,  with  the  exception  of 
Titus  and  I.  and  II.  Timothy,  while  he  rejected  the  writings 
of  all  the  other  apostles. 


prophesied  by  a  revelation  that 
was  made  to  him,  that  those  who 
believed  in  our  Christ  would  dwell 
a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem ; 
and  that  thereafter  the  general, 
and  in  short  the  eternal  revelation 
and  judgment  of  all  men,  would 
likewise  take  place."     Jb.  c.  61. 

'  "  For  when  Abraham  himself 
was  in  uncircumcision,  he  was 
justified  and  blessed  )\v  reason  of 
the  faith  which  he  reposed  in  God, 
as  the  Scripture  tells.  INIoreover, 
the  Scriptures  and  the  facts  them- 
selves compel  us  to  admit  that  he 
received  circumcision  for  a  sign, 
and  not  for  righteousness."  Ih.  c. 
22,  comp.  Rom.  iv.  10-12.  "For 
the  passover  was  Christ  .  .  . 
and  as  the  blood  of  the  passover 
saved  those  who  were  in  Egypt, 
so  also  the  blood  of  Christ  will 
deliver  from  death  those  who  have 
believed."  lb.  c.  Ill  ;  comp.  I. 
Cor.  v.  7.  "  For  every  demon, 
when  exorcised  in  the  name  of 
this  very  Son  of  God,  who  is  the 
first-born  of  every  creature."  Ih. 
c.  Ho,  comp.  Col.  i.  15.  "He  shall 
come  from  heaven  with  glory, when 
the  man  of  apostasy,  who  speaks 
strange  things  against  the  Most 
High,  shall  venture  to  <1<)  unlivw- 
ful  deeds  on  the  earth  against  us 
the  Christians."     Jb.  c.  110,  (omj). 


II.  Thes.  ii.  1-10.  "That  all  these 
things  should  come  to  pass,  I  say  our 
Teacher  foretold.  He  who  is  both 
Son  and  Apostle  of  God,  the  Father 
of  all  and  the  Ruler,  Jesus  Christ ; 
from  whom  also  we  have  the  name 
Christians."  First  Apol.  c.  12,  cojnp. 
Heb.  iii.  1.  the  title  Apostle  given 
to  Jesus. 

'^  "And  there  is  Marcion,  a  man 
of  Pontus,  who  is  even  at  this  day 
alive  and  teaching  his  disciples  to 
believe  in  some  other  God  greater 
than  the  Creator.  .  .  .  But  I 
have  a  treatise  against  all  the  her- 
esies that  have  existed,  already 
composed,  which,  if  you  wish  to 
read  it,  I  will  give  you."  /'V/.s7 
Apol.  c.  26. 

'  This  is  made  very  clear  in  Ter- 
tuUian's  work  against  Marcion. 
His  fifth  book  is  an  attempt  to  re- 
fute Marcion  out  of  the  very  epis- 
tles of  Paul,  which  he  acknowl- 
edged as  genuine,  ai^d  in  other 
books,  especially  the  fourth,  he 
refutes  him  out  of  Luke's,  which 
alone  he  accepted  in  a  corrupted 
form.  He  says:  "The  same  au- 
thority of  the  apostolic  churches 
will  afford  evidence  to  the  other 
gospels  also,  which  we  possess 
equally  throuKli  their  means,  and 
according  to  tlieir  usage — I  mean 
the  gospels  of  John  and  Matthew 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  97 

As  to  the  Catholic  Epistles,  it  is  conceded  by  some  of  the  Probable 

t       r-i  IT-  n         quotetious 

most  eminent  writers   on  the  Canon,  that  Justin  quotes  rrom  from 

none  of  them  ; '  but  there  are  two  passages  which  have  every ''^*^'^"'"" 
appearance  of  being  quotations  of  the  third  class  from  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  Speaking  of  the  decree  that  Adam 
should  die  in  the  day  that  he  ate  of  the  tree,  he  says  :  "  We 
have  perceived,  moreover,  that  the  expression,  '  The  day  of 
the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years,'  is  connected  with  this  sub- 
ject."' This  remark  shows  that  there  was  a  well  known  ex- 
pression, "  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand  years,"  an 
expression  which  is  found  in  almost  the  identical  terms  in  II. 
Peter  iii.  8,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible.^  In  the  other 
passage,  he  gives  as  a  reason  why  God  had  delayed  to  send 
Satan  and  those  who  follow  him  into  their  destined  punish- 
ment, that  it  was  because  of  his  regard  for  the  human  race  : 
"  For  he  knows  that  some  are  to  be  saved  by  repentance,  some 
even,  that  are  not  yet  born."  ^  Now  this  is  the  identical 
reason,  expressed  in  different  words,  that  is  given  for  this  delay 
in  II.  Peter  iii.  9  :  "  God  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise, 
as  some  men  count  slackness ;  but  is  long-suffering  to  you- 
ward,  not  wishing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."     It  is  far  more   likely  that  Justin  ob- 

— whilst    that    which    i\Iark    pub-  ^  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  c.  SI. 

Hshed  may  bo  affirmed  to  be  Pe-  ''  Compare    what  I  have   saiil  of 

ter's,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was.  the  use  made  of  the  same  passage 

.     .    .   When,  then,  Marcion  ought  by  Irenpeus,  page  88. 

to  be  called  to  a  strict  account  con-  ♦  "  For  among  us  the   prince  of 

cerning     these    also,    for    having  the  wicked  spirits  is  called  the.ser- 

omitted  them,  and  insisted  in  pref-  pent,  and  Satan,  and  the  devil,  as 

erence  on  Luke,  as  if  they  had  not  you  can  learn  l)y  looking  into  our 

had  free  course  in  the  churches,  as  writings.     And  that    he  would  be 

well  as  in  Luke's  gospel,  from  the  sent  into  the  fire  with  his  ho.st,and 

beginning,     iv.  5.  the   men    who    follow    him,    and 

'  "  It  will  be  found  that  the  C'ath-  would  be  punished  for  an  endless 

olic   Epistles,  and  the  Ef)istles  to  duration,  Christ  foretold.     For  the 

Titus  and  Philemon,  alone  of  the  reason  why  God  has  delayed  to  do 

writings  of  the   New    Testament,  this,  is  his  regard  h>r  the  human 

have    left  no    impression    on   the  race.     For  he  foreknows  that  some 

genuine  or  doubtful  works  of  .fus-  are   to   be    saved    by    repentance, 

tin     Martyr."       Westcott   On    the  some  even  that  are,   perhaps,  not 

Canon,  170.  yet  born."     First  Apology,  c.  28. 


98 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


tained  this  thought  from  Peter  than  that  he  originated  it  him- 
self and  propounded  it  on  his  own  authority,  as  an  interpreta- 
tion of  God's  mind. 

To  sum   up  the  evidence  from  tlie  writings  of  Justin,  we 

Sum  of  evi-  „jj^y  gtate,  that  it  proves  beyond  question  the  general  and  ])ub- 

Justin.  lie  use  within  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  of  the  four 
Gospels,  of  all  of  Paul's  Epistles  except  Titus  and  I.  and  II. 
Timothy,  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  almost  certainly  of  the 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter. 

papias:  Xhe   next  author  whose  testimony  we   employ  is  Paj)ias. 

He  was  an  overseer  of  the  church  at  Hierapolis,  a  city  which 
stood  in  the  vicinity  of  Laodicea  and  Colosse,  and  whose  well 
preserved  ruins  continue  to  attest  its  ancient  magnificence.     It 

his  home,  yy^  ^[jg  j^st  home  and  burial  place  of  the  Apostle  Philip  and 
two  of  his  three  daughters.'  The  church  is  mentioned  by 
Paul,  Col.  iv.  13. 

All  that  we  know  of  Papias  personally  is  derived  from  the 
writings  of  Irenseus  and  Eusebius.  He  was  the  author  of  a 
work  in  five  books  entitled  An  Exposition  of  Oracles  of  the 
Lord.^  The  whole  work  has  perished  except  a  few  quotations 
made  from  it  by  early  writers,  chiefly  Eusebius ;  consequently 
we  have  but  very  limited  means  of  knowing  what  use  he  made 
of  the   New  Testament  writings.     The  work  was  based,  as  its 


his  writ 
ings, 


*  Eusebius  quotes  from  Polyc- 
rates,  a  bishop  of  tlie  church  at 
Ephesus,  the  following  statement 
made  in  a  letter  to  Victor,  a  bishop 
of  Rome :  "  For  in  Asia  also, 
mighty  luminaries  have  fallen 
asleep,  which  shall  rise  again  at 
the  last  day,  at  the  api)earance  of 
the  Lord,  when  he  shall  come  with 
glory  from  heaven,  and  shall 
gather  again  all  the  saints.  I'hiliii, 
one  of  the  twelve  apostles  ,  who 
sleeps  in  Hierapolis,  and  his  two 
aged  virgin  daughters.  Another  of 
his  daughters  who  lived  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  rests  at  Ephesus." 
Ecrli^.  IIul.  III.  c.  .31  ;  v.  24.   Some 


have  supposed  that  in  this  quo- 
tation Philip  the  apostle  is  sul^sti- 
tuted  forPhilij)  the  evangelist,  but 
its  correctness  is  successfully 
argued  by  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  (^olos- 
sidihH,  4.5-47. 

■•*  Irenaeus,  JL'rrsicK,  v.  33,  4 ; 
Eusebius,  Eech's.  HiM.  III.  30. 
The  above  is  "Westcoft's  triuislntion 
of  the  title  (Canon,  70)  followed  by 
TJghtfoot,  Com.  on  Colossians,  47. 
Donaldson  (Hist.  Chris.  Lil.  avd 
Doc.  I.  314)  renders  it,  An  Ex- 
position of  the  Lord's  Sayings.  The 
original  words  arc  Aoyluv  KvplaKiiyv 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  99 

title  indicates,  on  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  consequently  we  should 
expect  its  references  to  be  confined  to  the  four  Gospels. 

The  period  at  which  he  lived  is  determined  by  the  follow- ^^'^  p<-"0'^ 
ing  statements:  Lusebms  says  that  he  claimed  to  liave  con- portunitiee. 
versed  with  the  daughters  of  Philip  ; '  Irenseus  says  that  he 
was  a  companion  of  Polycarp;'  and  he  says  of  himself  that 
he  had  conversed  with  various  persons  who  had  been  followers 
of  the  Apostles  ;  that  he  had  inquired  of  them  what  the  Apos- 
tles taught,  and  that  he  thought  he  derived  more  benefit  in 
writing  his  Exposition  from  the  living  voice  of  these  persons 
than  from  books.'^  These  statements  show  that  he  was  sepa- 
rated from  the  Apostles  by  only  a  single  generation,  and  that 
his  knowledge  of  apostolic  teaching  derived  from  books  was 
supplemented  by  the  recitals  of  original  hearers.  Eusebius 
considers  him  a  man  of  weak  judgment,*  but  this,  if  true,  does 
not  detract  from  his  testimony  concerning  facts. 

'"That  the  apostle  Phihp  con-  those  that  teach  the  truth  ;  neither 

tinned     at     Ilierapohs     with     his  those  that  record  foreign  precepts, 

daughters  has  heen  already  stated  but  those  that  are  given  from  the 

above.      But  we   must   now  show  Lord  to  our  faith,  and  that  come 

how  Papias,  coming  to  them,  re-  from  the  truth  itself.    But  if  I  meet 

ceived  a  wonderful  account  from  with  one  who  had  been  a  follower 

the  daughters  of   Philip."     Eccles.  of  the  elders  anywhere,  I  made  it 

Hist.  III.  30.  a  point  to  inquire  what  were  the 

*"  These  things  are  borne  wit-  declarations  of  the  elders.     What 

ness  to  in  writing  by  Papias,  the  was    said   by    Amliew,    Peter,   or 

hearer  of  .John,  and  a  companion  Philip.     "What  by  Thomas,  .Tames, 

of  Polycarp,  in  liis  fourth  book,  for  John,    ^latthew,  or   any  other  of 

there  were  five  books  compiled  by  the  di.sciples  of  the  Lord  ;  for  I  do 

him."     Heresieii,  v.  33.  not  think  I  derive  so  much  benefit 

'  Eusebiuslquotes  him  as  follows :  from  books  as  from  the  living  voice 

"But  I  shall  not  regret  to  subjoin  of  those  that  are  still  surviving." 

to  my  interpretations  also  for  your  Eccks.  Hist.  III.  30. 
benefit,  whatsoever  I  have  at  any       *  "  He   says    there    would    be  a 

time    accurately    a.scertained    and  certain  millennium  after  the  reaur- 

treasured  up  in  my  memory   as  I  rectiun,  and    that  there  would  be 

have  received  it  from  the  elders,  I  a  corporeal  reign  of  Christ  on  this 

have  received  it  in  order  to  give  very  earth,   which   things    ho  ap- 

additional  confirmation  to  the  truth  pears  to  have  imagined,  as  if  they 

of  my    testimony.      For    I    have  were  authorized  by  the    apostolic 

never,  like  many,  delighte<lto  hear  narrations,  not  understanding  cor- 

those  that    tell   many  things,  but  rectly   those   matters    which  they 


100  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

Hisaccount       Qf  Matthew's  Gospel   he  makes  the  following  statement: 

of  Mat-  ^  ,  . ,       I  . 

thew;  and  "  Matthew  composed  the  Oracles  (  Ta  Aoyca)  in  the  Hebrew  dia- 

inference 
therefrom ; 


inference     j^^j.^  j^^j  every  onc  translated  it  as  he  was  able."^     The  man- 


ner in  which  the  book  is  mentioned  implies  that  it  was  then 
well  known,  while  the  declaration  concerning  the  dialect  in 
which  it  was  written  implies  that  it  had  not  continued  to  cir- 
culate in  that  dialect :  for  if  the  Matthew  still  in  use  was 
written  in  Hebrew  it  would  have  been  very  idle  to  inform  the 
public  that  it  was  composed  in  that  dialect.  Moreover,  the 
statement  that  every  one  "  translated  it  as  he  was  able  "  implies 
that  such  translation  was  of  the  past  and  belonged  to  the  ear- 
lier period  of  the  book's  existence.^  When  Papias  lived  it 
was  known  only  in  the  Greek, 
hisaccount        Concerning  our  second  Gospel,  Papias  states,  on  the  au- 

ofMark;  .  /.     ,  i  />  i  i 

thority  of  one  of  the  elders  above  referred  to  whom  he  calls 
"  John  the  Presbyter,"  that  Mark  was  Peter's  interpreter,  that 
what  he  recorded  was  written  with  great  accuracy  though  not 
in  chronological  order,  and  that  Peter  gave  him  such  instruc- 
tion as  was  necessary;^     His  language  implies,  as  in  the  case 

propounded  mystically  in  their  he  moans  and  implies  in  liis  hin- 
representations.  For  he  was  very  guage,  that  the  necessity  of  rend- 
limited  in  his  comprehension,  as  is  ering  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  had 
evident  from  his  discourses;  yet  once  existed,  to  be  sure,  but  ex- 
he  was  the  cause  why  most  of  the  isted  no  longer."  Prof.  Geo.  P. 
ecclesiastical  writers,  urging  the  an-  Fisher,  Supernatural  Origin  of  Chris- 
tiquity  of  the  man,  were  carried  tianity,  162.  Meyer,  speaking  on 
away  by  a  similar  opinion;  as,  for  this  subject  says:  "The  original 
instance,  Irenteus,  or  any  other  Hebrew  writing,  however,  from 
that  adopted  such  sentiments."  whi(;h  our  present  Matthew  pro- 
Eccles.  Hist.  III.  39.  Perhaps  this  ceeded  through  being  translated 
low  estimate  of  the  man's  compre-  into  Greek,  must,  apart  from  the 
hension  was  suggested  by  the  poor  language,  have  been  in  contents 
opinion  which  Eusebius  enter-  and  in  form,  in  whole  and  in  part, 
tained  concerning  the  doctrine  of  substantially  the  same  as  our  Greek 
the  millennium  ;  yet  in  the  very  Matthew.  The  general  evidence 
expression  of  this  opinion  he  shows  in  favor  of  this  view  is,  that 
that  Papias  exert(?d  a  very  decided  throughout  the  ancient  church  our 
influence  over  the  views  of  later  Greek  Matthew  was  already  used 
writers.  as    if    it    l.ad  been   the    authentic 

'/ft.  (ext  itself."     Com.  on  Matthew,  Int. 

'  "  When  'every  one  interpreted  '    ?  ii.  (3). 
the  Hebrew  Matthew 'as  he  could,'       •'"'And  .Tohn  the  presbyter  also 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  101 

of  Matthew,  that  this   Guspol  was  well   known   in  the  days  of 
Papias,  and  was  believed  to  have  eome  from  the  pen  of  Mark. 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  not  mentioned  in  anv  of  the  extant  p'"^*'*^''' 

'  ,  ",  ,  statement 

fragments  of  Papias,  but  a  manuscript  of  John  in  the  Vatican  about 
library  has  a   Latin   "argument"   prefixed  to  it  which  was '^°^°''' '^'"' 
written  in  the  ninth  century,  when  the  works  of  Papias  were 
still  extant,  and  it  states  that  Papias  described  this  Gospel  and 
related  that  it  had  been  given  to  the  churches  by  John.' 

Besides   these   three  Gospels,    Eusebius   says    that   Papias 
made  use  of  testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle  oi'  John  aud'-^o'*°' 

I.  Peter, 

also  from  that  of  Peter  ;"  -  and  Andrew  of  C£esarea,  a  Greek  Revelation, 
writer  of  the  fifth  century,  declares  that  he  bore  testimony  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  book  of  Revelation.'^ 

These  are  all  the  books  mentioned  or  quoted  by  Papias,  so 
far  as  our  meagre  information  extends.  They  include  all 
the  Gospels  but  Luke's,  I.  Peter,  I.  John,  and  the  sum  and 
Apocalypse.  It  is  })robable,  from  the  nature  of  his  work,  evidence. 
as  before  intimated,  that  if  we  had  it  all,  the  list  would  not  be 
greatly  extended.  It  is  altogether  certain  that  the  books 
which  he  does  use  were  not  only  recognized  in  his  day  as  apos- 
tolic, but  that  they  were  so  recognized  by  the  elders  who  were 

said  this:    Mark    ln-ing   the  inter-  wa.s   published  and  given    to  the 

preter  of   I'ttir,  wliat.socv  .r  he  n;-  ehurches  by  John  while  yet  in  the 

corded   he   wrote    with    accuracy,  body.     So  relates  Papias,  a  man  of 

but  not,  however,  in  the  order  in  flierapolin,  in  the  last  of  his  five 

which  it  was  spoken  or  done  by  books.     He  has  rightly  described 

our    Ix)rd ;     he    was    in   company  the  gospel  as  being  composed  by 

with  Peter,  who  gave  him  such  in-  John." 

struction  as  was  necessary,  but  not  '■'  Kecks.  HiM.  III. •.'39. 

to  g4ve  a  history  of  our  Lord's  dis-  '^  Westcott,    Canon  of  N.   T.  44.3. 

courses.     Wherefore  Mark  has  not  The   words  of  Andrew  are  as  fol- 

erred  in  anything  by  writing  some  lows  :  "  With  regard  to  the  inspir- 

things  as  he   has   recorded  them  ;  ation  of  the  book  (Revelation)  we 

for  he   was   carefully  attentive  to  deem  it  superfluous  to  add  another 

one  thing,  not  to  pass  by  anything  word;     for    the    blessed   (iregory 

that  he  heard,  or  to  .state  anything  Theologus,   and    Cyril,    and    even 

falsely  in  these  accounts."    Quoted  some   of    still   older  date.   Papias, 

by  Eusebius,  Ecrles.  IliM.  HI.  .39.  Irena-us,  Methodius  and  Ilippoly- 

*The  pas.sago  as  given  by  West-  tus,  bore  entirely  satisfactory  testi- 

cott  {Canon  of  N.  T.  7G,  n.  1)  is  thus  mony  to  it."     Fmgmrnts  of  Papias, 

translated;  "The  Goapel  of  John  \U1.,  An(e-Nicaie  Library,  yol  I. 


102  GENUIXENESS  OF  THE 

his  instructors  and  who  had  known  the  Apostles.  This  traces 
them  to  the  Apostles  and  their  comjjunions  by  evidence  that 
can  not  fairly  be  called  in  question. 

polycarp:  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  is  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  char- 
acters of  the  church  in  the  second  century.  Irenanis,  who 
when  a  boy  was  personally  acquainted  with  him,  says  of  him 

his  oppor-    ^^^^  (( jjg  ^g^g  instructed  by  Apostles  ;  "  that  he  had  "  conversed 

tuuities;  _  11. 

with  many  who  had  seen  Christ ;  "  that  he  was  appointed  an 
overseer  of  the  Church  in  Smyrna  by  Apostles  ;  that  he  lived 
to  be  a  very  old  man  ;  and  that  he  suffered  "  a  glorious  mar- 
tyrdom." "To  these  things/'  adds  Ircnseus,  "all  the  Asiatic 
cliurches  testify,  as  do  all  those  men  who  have  succeeded  Poly- 
carp down  to  the  present  time."^ 

his  martyr-  jjig  martyrdom  occurred  Feb.  23,  a.  d.  155,  or  156,^  and 
in  an  account  of  it  written  in  the  name  of  the  church  at 
Smyrna  he  is  represented  as  claiming  to  hiwe  served  the  Lord 
Jesus  eighty-six  years.^     This  dates  his  baptism  as  early  asthe 

date  of  his  yg^j.  'jQ    ^\^q  fj^tg  of  tiic    destruction    of   Jerusalem.      If  we 

baptism ;       ''  i  i  i  •        i        i 

suppose  that  he  was  100  years  old  at  his  death,  a  supposition 
quite  in  harmony  with  the  statement  of  Irenteus,  he  was  bap- 

'  .4r/^r/;/s7  //i'/r.svVs,  2fi2,  263.  Polycarp.  Donaldson,  after  point- 
"•'Ilis  death  is  variously  placed  ing  out  many  unautlientic  details 
from  147-17G.  The  recent  investi-  in  it,  reaches  this  conclusion : 
gations  of  M.  Waddington  as  to  the  "  The  hypothesis  by  Mhich  we  can 
date  of  the  Proconsulship  of  L.  give  the  most  probable  account  of 
8tatius  Quadratup,  under  whom  this  production  is  that  it  really  was, 
Polycari)  sufTerod,  tix  the  true  date  as  it  professes  to  be,  a  letter  from 
[Feb.  2.3],  155-0  A.  D."  WcstcoU,  the  church  in  Smyrna  ,  that  it  was 
Canon  of  N.  T."  39,  n.  5.  a  short  summary  of  the  principal 
""Then  the  proconsul  urging  circumstances  of  the  marlyrdom  ; 
him  and  saying:  'Swear  and  I  will  and  that  as  this  letter  went  down 
Bet  thee  at  liberty,  reproach  Christ ;'  to  posterity  it  gathered  length  and 
Polycarp  declared,  '  Eighty  and  six  absurdities."  Knt.  of  Chrhtian  Lit. 
years  have!  served  him,  and  he  and  Doc.  I.  100-169.  Westcottsays 
never  did  me  an  injury,  how  then  of  it:  "The  authenticity  of  this 
can  I  blaspheme  my  King  and  my  narrative  has  been  calle<l  in  ques- 
Savior?"  M(trt]ir<hm  of  Pohjcrap,  c.  tion.  but  there  seems  to  be  no  suf- 
IX.,  Anie-Nicme  Library,  vol.  1.  ficient  reason  for  doubting  its  gen- 
There  has  been  much  discu.ssion  eral  truthfulness."  Canon  of  N. 
as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  docu-  T.  40  n.  3. 
ment    called    the    Martvrdom    of 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  103 

tized  at  foui'tecn,  and  lie  was  twelve  years  old  when  Paul  was 
beheaded,  a.  d.  (J8.  He  may  have  seen  that  Apostle  when  he 
was  a  child.  After  his  baptism  he  lived  thirty  years  cotem- 
])()rary  with  the  Apostle  John,  and  as  John  sjx'nt  the  latter  >'^'*'"'*"'i'' 
part  'of  his  life  at  P^phcsus,  only  fifty  miles  from  Smyrna, 
Polyoarp  may  have  seen   him  and  heard  him.      Furthermore, 


ith 


as  Phili|)'s  home  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  was  at  Hierap- "'"^ "' 

*  ,  *      Philip 

olis,  only  about  100  miles  east  of  Smyrna,'  Polyearj)  may  have 
seen  that  Apostle,  and  he  may,  in  the  course  (»f  his  liic'  have 
met  with  others.  It  is  not  improbable  that  Irenaus  is  correct 
in  saying  that  he  was  instructed  by  Aj)ostles,  and  by  Apostles 
appointed  to  office  in  the  church.  His  long  life,  reaching  back  iiisknowi- 
into  the  very  midst  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  extending  down  ^ew  lesta- 
to  the   middle  of  the  .second   century,  enabled   him  toknow™^°^ 

.  books ; 

what  writings  of  the  Apo.stles  were  in  use  almost  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  it  made  him  familiar  with  the  first  appearance  of 
all  their  later  productions.  The  books  which  he  recognized  as 
apostolic  must  have  been  so,  and  what  he  taught  concerning 
them  was  j)ropagated  in  Gaul  by  his  pupil  Irenieus,  in  Asia  by 
other  pupils,  and  in  Rome  by  him.self ;  for  in  the  imperial  city 
he  in  person  defended  the  faith  against  heresy.^ 

Polycarp  wrote  a  number  of  epistles  to  neighboring 
churches,^  of  which  that  to  the  Philippians  alone  has  been 
preserved.  It  is  quite  brief,  occupying  in  print  not  much 
more  than  five  ordinary  octavo  pages.  It  is  written  in  the 
name  of  "  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  with  him,"  and  it  is 
addressed  to  "  the  church  of  God  sojourning  at  Philippi."  * 

■  See  page  98.  boring  churches  in  order  to  con- 

*  '•  He   it  was  who,  coming   to  firm    them,   or    to    some    of     the 

Rome  in   the    time   of    Anicetus,  brethren  in  order  to  admonish  and 

caused   many  to  turn    away   from  to  cxiiort    them,    the   same   thing 

the       aforesaid       heretic.         The  may  ho  clearly  shown."     Ireiurus 

church   of   riod,   proclaiming  that  quoted   by   Eusebius,  EccUk.    Hixt. 

he  had  received  this  one  and  sole  v.  20. 

truth    from     the     apostles  —  that,        *"  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters 

namely,  which  is  handed  down  by  with  him,  to  the  church  of  (Jod  so- 

the     church."      Irenious,    Against  journing   at     riiilippi:     Mercy   to 

Herr»ii'n,  III.  .3,  4.  you,  and  peace  from  <iod  .Mmighty 

*"  From  hi.s[Polycarp'8]  epistles  and    from    the  Lord   Jesus   Christ 

also  which  he  wrote  to  the  neigh-  our  Saviour,  be  multiplied."   !<alu- 


liis  writ- 
ings, 


104 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


the  books  As  One  would  naturally  suppose,  the  writer  makes  allusions 

andhi*s*^*  to  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippiaus,  and  exhorts  the  brethren 
method  of  to  observe  its  precepts/  His  citations  of"  other  books  are 
made  anonymously,  and  they  are  interwoven  with  one  another 
and  with  his  own  words  in  such  a  way  as  to  form  continuous 
sentences.  In  the  first  of  the  fourteen  very  short  chapters 
into  which  the  epistle  has  been  divided,  he  in  this  way  quotes 
Philippians,  Acts,  First  Peter  and  Ephesians.^  Several  whole 
chapters,  and  large  parts  of  others  might  be  styled  a  patch- 
work of  quotations,  the  quotations  being  taken  from  the  first 
three  Gospels,  Acts,  all  of  Paul's  Epistles  except  Titus  and 
Philemon,  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  First  of  Peter? 
The  genuineness  of  all  these  books  is  therefore  supported  by 
this  invaluable  evidence. 
Babnabas:  Barnabas  is  the  author  of  an  Epistle  giving  mystical  and 
fanciful  interpretations  of  many  facts  and  laws  of  tlie  Old 
Testament.     He  was  until  recently  thought  to  be  the  Barnabas 


tation  of  the  Epistle.     Ante-Nic.  Lib. 
vol.  I. 

'  "Neither  I  nor  any  other  such 
one,  can  come  up  to  the  wisdom  of 
the  blessed  and  glorified  Paul.  He, 
when  among  you,  accurately  and 
steadfastly  taught  the  word  of 
truth  in  the  presence  of  those  who 
were  then  alive.  And  when  absent 
from  you  he  wrote  you  a  letter, 
which,  if  you  carefully  read,  you 
will  find  to  be  the  means  of  build- 
ing you  up  in  that  faith  which  has 
been  given  yon,  and  wliich,  being 
followed  by  hope,  and  preceded  by 
love  toward  God  and  Christ  and 
our  neighbor,  is  the  mother  of  us 
all."  c.  iii.  "  But  I  have  neither 
seen  nor  lieard  of  any  such  thing 
[covetousness]  among  you,  in  the 
midst  ol  whom  the  blessed  Paul 
labored,  and  who  an-  commended 
in  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle. 
For  he  boasts  of  you  in  all  tho.se 
churches    which    then    knew    the 


Lord  ;  but  we  [of  Smyrna]  had  not 
yet  known  Ilim."     c.  xi. 

'  "  And  because  the  strong  root 
of  your  faith  spoken  of  in  days 
long  gone  l)y,  endureth  until  now 
[Phil.  i.  5J  and  bringeth  forth  fruit 
to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  for 
our  sins  suffered  oven  unto  death, 
whom  God  raised  from  the  dead, 
having  loosed  the  })ands  of  hades. 
[Acts  ii.  24].  In  whom,  though 
now  you  see  Him  not,  ye  believe, 
and  believing,  rejoice  with  joy  un- 
speakable and  full  of  glory  [L  Pet. 
i.  H];  into  which  joy  many  desire 
to  enter,  knowing  that  by  grace  ye 
are  saved,  not  of  works,  [Epli.  li. 
8. 91  ])ut  by  the  will  of  God  through 
Jesus  Christ." 

'See  appendix  "  A  "  for  three  of 
these  chapters  and  the  scripture 
references.  Only  by  examining 
these  can  tlie  student  see  the  full 
force  of  the  remarks  made  above. 


SKW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 


105 


mentioned   in   the   New   Testament,  but    this    has    been   dis-i'i*Kpi'^tic, 
proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt  by  the  contents  of  the  epistle.' 
The  latter  was  known  only  in  a  Latin  version,  until  a  copy  of 
the  Greek  original  was   found   by  Tischendorf  attached  to  the 
Sinaitic  manuscript. 

The  date  of  this  document  is  not  very  definitely  fixed.  It  its  date; 
was  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  appears 
from  the  fact  that  this  event  is  mentioned  in  it ;  ^  and  it  was 
written  long  enough  before  the  days  of  Clement  of  Alexandria 
to  have  acquired  the  reputation  of  having  been  written  ])v  the 
New  Testament  Barnabas.''  The  majority  of  competent  critics 
agree  in  assigning  it  to  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.* 


'  It  contains  many  gross  blun- 
ders in  regard  to  the  Levitical  law, 
of  which  Barnabas,  the  Levite,  can 
not  have  been  guilty,  many  silly 
interpretations  which  a  man  of  his 
sense  can  not  have  accepted,  and 
many  misstatements  about  matters 
of  fact  which  can  not  have  been 
made  by  a  man  of  his  information. 
These  are  pointed  out  abundantly 
by  Donaldson  (Hist.  Christ.  Lit. 
and  Dori.  I.  201-210),  and  they  may 
be  seen  by  the  most  casual  reading 
of  the  epistle  itbclf. 

^  "  Moreover,  I  will  tell  you  con- 
cerning the  temple,  how  the 
wretched  Jews,  wandering  in  error, 
trusted  not  in  God  himself,  but  in 
the  temple  as  being  the  house  of 
(lod.  •  *  «  Moreover, 
He  again  says:  Behold,  they  who 
have  enst  down  this  temple,  even 
they  sliall  f)uild  it  again,  ft  has 
so  happened.  For  through  their 
coing  to  war  it  was  destroyed  by 
their  enemies;  and  now  they,  as 
the  servantsof  their  enemies,  shall 
rebuild  it."  EfiiKtle  of  Barmtha!^, 
c.  Tvi. 

*  Clement  quotes  it  several 
times  as  the  work  of  "  the  apostle 


Bariia])a8,  "  and  he  says  that  Barn- 
abas was  "  one  of  the  .seventy  and 
a  fellow  worker  of  Paul "  Stromata, 
ii.  G,  p.  19;  7,  p.  22;  15,  p.  41 ;  20, 
p.  G6 ,  v.  8,  p.  252 ;  10,  p.  258. 

*  "  We  therefore  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  must  have  been 
written  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  that  it  could  not  have 
been  written  after  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  but  that  there  is 
no  certain  way  of  fixing  on  any  in- 
tervening (late  as  the  period  of  its 
composition.  !Most  have  been  in- 
clined to  place  it  not  later  than  the 
first  quarter  of  the  second  century. 
The  whole  cast  of  the  letter  seems 
to  me  to  require  a  later  date,  but 
this  is  a  matter  of  personal  feeling." 
Donaldson,  Tfixt.  Chris.  Lit  and 
Dor.  L  220.  "The  letter  contains 
not  only  an  allusion  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Jewish  Temple,  but  al.so 
affirms  the  abrogation  of  the  Sab- 
bath and  the  general  observance  of 
the  Lord's  day,  which  seems  to 
show  that  it  can  not  have  been 
written  before  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century.''  Westcott,  Canon 
of  y.  T.,  41. 


106 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


Its  use  of 
Matthew ; 


inference 
from  it. 


Clement  OF 
Rome: 

his  Epistle ; 


certainty 
that  he 
wrote  it ; 


If  this  is  correct,  the  writer's  personal  knowledge  reached  back 
into  the  first  century. 

Its  subject  matter  being  an  interpretation  of  portions  of 
the  Old  Testament,  we  could  not  expect  to  find  in  it  many 
quotations  from  the  New.  Its  chief  value  for  our  present  pur- 
pose is  found  in  its  quotation  of  Matthew  with  the  formula, 
"  It  is  written  :  "  "  Let  us  beware  lest  we  be  found,  as  it  is 
written,  many  are  called,  but  few  arc  chosen.' "  As  this  is  the 
formula  with  which  Christian  writers  and  s'pcakers  introduced 
quotations  from  the  Scriptures,  its  use  by  Barnabas  in  quoting 
Matthew  shows  that  he  regarded  this  book  with  the  same  rev- 
erence as  the  older  Scriptures.  This  is  the  earliest  known  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  this  formula  in  citing  a  New  Testament 
book. 

There  was  no  document  from  an  uninspired  pen  so  highly 
prized  by  the  church  of  the  early  centuries,  as  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  to  the  Corinthians.  Only  three  manuscript  copies  of 
it  are  now  known  to  exist.  One  of  these,  long  supposed  to  be 
the  only  one,  is  attached  to  the  Arexandrian  MS.  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  if  it  were  a  part  of  the  sacred  volume ;  one  was 
discovered  in  Constantinople  in  the  year  1875  ;  and  tiie  third, 
in  Syriac,  was  found  in  Paris  in  1876,  bound  in  a  Syriae  MS. 
of  the  New  Testament  immediately  after  the  Catholic  Epistles.^ 

The  Epistle  does  not  bear  the  name  of  (^lenient,  but  is 
written  in  the  name  of  "  The  Church  of  God  which  sojourns 
at  Rome,  to  the  Church  of  God  sojourning  at  Corinth."  There 
is  abundant  evidence,  however,  from  the  statements  of  other 
writers,  that  Clement,  who  was  then  the  principal  bishop  of 
the  Church  at  Rome,  was  the  writer.^ 


^  Epinlle  nf  Barnahan  c.  iv.  coin  p. 
Matt.  xxii.  IH. 

■^"In  1875  critics  and  students 
were  .startled  by  the  appearance  of 
a  careful  and  complete  edition 
published  in  Constantinople  from 
a  M.S.  discovered  in  the  "  library 
of  the  Holy  Sephlchre"  in  that 
city.  Its  editor  is  Philotheos 
Brj'cnnios,  Metropolitan  of  Serrae. 


Six  new  chapters,  containingamong 
other  interestinj,'  matter  a  prayer 
of  singular  beauty,  are  added  by 
this  new  MS.  to  the  text  of  Codex 
.\."  "Scarcely  was  this  discovery 
realized  when  a  Syriac  MS.  of  the 
"  Two  Epistles "  was  also  found 
(1876)  in  Paris."  Charteris,  Canon- 
icily,  Int.  viii.,  ix. 

'  "Of  this  Clement  there  is  one 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  107 

Clement  is  sai<l  by  both  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  to  have  been*^'^P^"°'^' 
the  tiiird  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Rome,  and  the  date  of  his 
appointment  as  given  by  Eusebius  is  the  twelfth  year  of  Dora- 
itian's  reign,  which  was  A.  D.  D3.     He  died  in  the  third  year 
of  Trajan,  which  was  A.  D.  101.^ 

The  epistle  was  written,   according:  to  its  openiner  state- ^"'^  ?' "^^, 

'^  y  1  &  episUe;and 

ni en t,  after  some  "sudden  and  calamitous  events"  had  just opportuni- 
happened  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  commonly  supposed  to  have '^^^^[l*'^ 
been  a  local  persecution.-     Such  persecutions  frequently  oc- 
curred under  the   reign  of  Domitian,  and  the  most  probable 
date  assigned  to  the  epistle  is  a.  d.  96  or  97.^     But  the  date  of 

epistle    extant,  acknowledged    as  of    Rome    twelve    years,  he  was 

genuine,  of     considerable    length  succeeded  by   Clement,   who,  tlie 

and  of  great  merit,  which  he  wrote  apostle  in  liis  epistle  to  the  Philip- 

in   the    name  of    tlie    church    at  pians  shows,  had  been   his  fellow 

Rome  to  that   at  Corinth,  at  tlie  laborer,  in  these   words:      'With 

time  when  there  was   a  dissension  Clement  and  the  rest  of  my  fellow 

in   the   latter.    This   we   know  to  laborers,  whose  names  are  in  the 

have  been  publicly  read   for  the  book  of    life.'  "    Eusebius,  Eccles. 

common  benefit  in   most  of    the  Hist.   III.    15.      Modern    scholars 

churches,  both  in  former  times  and  very  generally  doubt  this  identifi- 

in  our  own  ;   and  that  at  the  time  cation  of  the  Clement  in  question 

mentioned  a  sedition  (lid  take  place  with  the  one  here  mentioned  by 

at  Corinth,  is  abundantly  attested  Paul.     It  is  immaterial  to  our  pur- 

by  Hegesippus."    Eusebius;  Eccks.  pose  whether  he  is  the  same  or  not. 

Hixi.  III.  16.  *"  Owing,  dear  brethren,  to  the 

•"The    blessed     apostles,   then,  sudden     and     calamitous    events 

having  founded  and  built  up  tl.e  which  have  happened  to  ourselves, 

clnnch  [at  Rome]  committed  into  we  feel  tliat  we  have  been  some- 

the  hands  of    Linus  the  office  of  what   tardy  in  turning  our  atten- 

(he  episcopate.       *       *       »       To  tion  to  the  i>oiiits  respecting  which 

him    succeeded    Anadetus;     and  you  consulted  us;   and   especially 

after  him,  in  tlie  third  place  from  to  that  shameful  and  detestable  se- 

the  ai)rstles,  Clement  was  allotted  dition  which  a  few  rash  and  self- 

the   bishopric.     This  man,  as  he  confident  persons  liave  kindled  to 

had  seen  the  blessed  apostles,  and  such   a    pitch  of  frenzy,  that  your 

had   been  conversant  with  them,  venerable    and   illustrious    name, 

might  be  said   to  iiave  the  j^reach-  wortliy   to   be   universally    loved, 

ing  of   the  apostles  still  echoing  in  has    sufrere<l     grievous     injury." 

his  ears,  and  their  traditions  before  EpiMlc  of  Clnnent,  c.  T. 

his  eyes."     Irena-us,  Hrrrslix,  III,  •' Charteris,  Crt»"»iin7'/, /;ir  x.,  xi. ; 

3,  3.     "In  the  twelfth  year  of  the  but  see  Donaldson,  Hist.  Chris.  Lit. 

same    reign    [that    of     Domitian]  atid     Dor.    I..   105-110;     Westcott, 

after  Anadetus  liad  been  bishop  Canon  of  N.  T.,  22,  23. 


108  (GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

the  epistle  is  not  so  important  for  our  purpose  as  the  period  in 
which  the  author  lived.  If  he  was  old  enough  in  the  year  93 
to  be  appointed  Bishop  of  a  large  church  like  that  in  Rome, 
he  had  probably  lived  through  all  the  period  of  the  apostolic 
writings.  The  earliest  of  these,  I.  Thessalonians,  was  written 
A.  D.  52,  just  41  yea-rs  before  Clement's  appointment  to  office. 
He  had  means,  therefore,  of  knowing  what  writings  had  come 
from  the  pens  of  Apostles  up  to  the  date  of  his  own  Epistle, 
and  all  the  books  that  he  quotes  belong  unquestionably  to  the 
apostolic  age,  seeing  that  his  epistle  was  written  before  the 
death  of  John. 

He  makcis  no  express  quotation  except  one  from  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In  rebuking  the  Corinthians  for 
hisuseof  I.  a  sedition  existing  among  them,  he  says:  "  Take  up  the  Epistle 
of  the  blessed  Apostle  Paul.  What  did  he  write  to  you  in  the 
beginning  of  the  gospel?  Truly,  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit  he  wrote  to  you  concerning  himself  and  Cephas  and 
Apollos,  because  even  then  parties  had  been  formed  among 
you."  ^  Now  Clement  could  not  have  written  thus  to  these 
brethren  unless  he  and  they  both  knew  that  Paul  had  written 
to  them  such  an  Epistle. 

Though  Clement  makes  no  other  quotations  of  the  first 

class  from  the   New  Testament,  he  makes  many  of  the  third 

Matthew;    f.jjisg      In  oue  passage  he  combines  texts   from  Matthew  and 

Luke;        Lukc.^     In    another   he  combines  peculiar   expressions  from 

'  Epistle,  0.  xlvii.  He  proceeds;  tlio  most  steadfast  and  ancient 
"  ]?nt  that  inclination  fur  one  above  church  of  the  Corinthians  should, 
another  entailed  less  guilt  upon  on  account  of  one  or  two  persons, 
you,  inasniu(;h  as  your  partialities  engage  in  sedition  against  its  pres- 
wcre  then  showe<l  toward  aj)ostles  hyters.  And  this  rumor  has 
already  of  high  reputation,  and  to-  reached  not  only  us,  but  those  also 
wards  a  man  whom  they  had  ap-  wlio  are  unconnected  with  us;  so 
proved.  But  now  reflect  who  those  that,  through  your  infatuation  the 
are  that  have  perverted  you,  and  name  of  the  Lord  is  blaspliemed 
lessened  the  renown  of  your  far-  whiles  danger  is  also  l)rouglit  upon 
famed   brotherly  love.      It  is  dis-    yourselves." 

graceful,  beloved,  yea,  highly  dis-  "  "  Being  specially  mindful  of  the 
graceful,  and  unworthy  of  your  words  of  the  Lord  .Jestis-  which  he 
Christian  profession,  that  such  a  spoke,  teaching  us  meekness  and 
thing  should  be  heard  of,  as  that    long  suffering.     For  thus  he  spoke  : 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  109 

Ephesians,  Romans,  Matthew,  and  Mark  or  Luke.'      Of  Paul's  p*"^'^ 
other  epistles  lie  (piotes  Titus  ^  and   Hebrews.^     He   has  un-^'*'"^* 
doubted  quotations  from  I.  Peter,  and  in  two  passages  he  seems '^"'^  "• 
to  quote  II.  Peter.*     We  may  say,  then,  that  he   makes  use  in  ""''" 
his  epistk^,  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  five  of  Paul's  epistles, 
and  the  First  and  probably  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.     He 
has  nothing  from  the  writings  of  John,  for  none  of  these  had 
gone  into  circulation,  unless  Revelation   is  an  exception,  and 

Be  ye  merciful  that  ye  may  obtain  kindness,  being  ready  t<.  every 
mercy  (Matt.  v.  7) ;  forgive  that  it  good  work."  Epistl,,' c.  ii.  n.nm 
may  be  forgiven  you  (Luke  vi.  37) ;    Titus  iii.  1. 

as  ye  do,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  you,  3  gy  jjim  the  Lord  has  willed 
as  ye  judge,  so  shall  ye  be  judged  that  we  shoul.l  taste  of  innnortal 
( Matt.  vn.  2);  as  ye  are  kind,  so  shall  knowledge,  who,  being  the  bright- 
kin.biess  be  shown  to  you;  with  ness  of  His  majesty,  is  by  so  much 
what  measure  ye  mete,  with  the  greater  than  the  angels,  as  He  hath 
same  it  shall  be  measured  to  you.  l)y  inheritance  obtained  a  more  ex- 
(Lukevi.  88.)     Ejmtle,  c.  :siu.  cellent  name  than  thev."     Epistle 

"  Have  we  not  all  one  God  and   c.  xxxvi.,  comp.  Heb.  i  's  4 
one  Chnst  ?    Ls  there  not  one  spirit        ♦  "  Let  us  look  steadfastly  to  the 
ot  grace  pour<?d  out  upon  us  ?    And   blood  of  Christ,  and  see  how  precious 
have  we  not  one  calling  in  Christ?   that  blood  is  to  God  (I   Pet    i    19) 
(E^h.  iv.  4-<J).     Why  do  we  divide    which,  having  been  shed  for  our  sal- 
ami tear  m  pieces  the  members  of    vation,  lias  set  the  grace  of  repent- 
Christ,  and  raise  up  strife  against    ance  before  the  whole  world      Ut 
our  own   body,  and   have   reached    us  turn  to  every  age  that  has  passed, 
such  a  height  ol  madness  as  to  for-   and  learn  that,  from  generation  to 
get  that   we  are  members  one  of  generation,  the  Lord  has  granted  a 
another?  (Rom.  xii.  5).    Remember   place   of   repentance  (Heb.  xii.  17) 
he  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,    to  all  such  as  would  be  converte.l 
bow  he  said:    '  Wo  to  that  man  by    unto  Him.     Noah  preached  n-pent- 
whomoffen.sescome.'(Matt.xviii,7).    ance  (IL  Pet.  ii.  o)  and  as  many  as 
It  were  better  for  him  that  he  bad    listened  to  him  were  saved  (I    Pet 
ncyer  been    born   (Matt.  xxvi.    L>4)    iii.  20)."  yiy^/.s//.,  c.  vii.  "  Noah  being 
hanthatlu.should<astastumbling-   found   faithful,  preached   regenera- 
block  before  one  of  my  elect.     Yea,    tion    (IL    Pet.    ii.  8)    to  the    world 
.    were  better  for  him  that  a  mill-    through  his  ministry."     Epistir,   c 
stone   should   be   hung    about    his    i.v.      It    shoul.l    be   ob.served.    that 
neck  and  that  he  should  be  sunk  in    nowhere  in  the  Pible  is  Noah  rep- 
the  depths  of  the  sea.  than  that  W    resente.l    as  a    preacher.  ..x,r,.t    in 
shoul.  cast  a  .stumbling.blo..k  before    II.  Pet.  ii.  .^  the  i.as.s.igc^  from  which 
one  of    my    httle  oiu's"  ,Mark    i.x.    Clement   is  supposed   to   have   de- 
42,^or  Luke  xvii.  2).  EpWe,  c.  xlvi.   rived  this  idea. 
'  "  Ye   never  grn.lge<l  any  act  of 


110  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

perhaps  none  of  them  had  been  written  at  the  date  of  Clement's 

epistle. 

Summary  ^Yp  have  now  presented  the  evidence  from  quotations,  omit- 

from quota- ting  somc  Writers  because  of  the  small  number  of  quotations 

tions.         ^vhich  they  make,  and  others  because  the  genuineness  or  the 

antiquity  of  their  writings  is  in  dispute.' 

Bv  this  source  of  evidence  we  have  traced  every  book  of 
the  New/Iestament  back  to  the  apostolic  age,  except  Phile- 
mon, the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John,  Jude,  James^ 
and  possibly  II.  Peter.  From  the  last  we  have  found  three 
probable  quotations  (those  by  Iremeus,  Justin  and  Clement); 
from  II.  John  one  (that  by  Irenseus);  but  from  Philemon, 
Jude  and  III.  John,  no  quotations  at  all.  We  have  traced  the 
first  three  Gospels  all  the  way  to  Clement,  and  the  fourth  to 
Papias.  We  have  traced  Acts  and  all  of  Paul's  epistles  except 
Philemon  back  to  Polycarp,  and  five  of  the  latter  back  to 
Clement.  AVc  have  traced  Peter's  first  epistle  to  Clement,  and 
his  second  by  evidence  not  so  conclusive  to  the  same  period. 
That  of  James  is  quoted  by  none  as  early  as  Irenseus.  Fi- 
nally, we  have  traced  Jolm's  first  epistle  back  to  Polycarp, 
and  the  Apocalypse  to  Papias.  Thus  all  these  books,  with  the 
exceptions  named,  are  found  to  have  been  in  actual  use  among 
the  Disciples  at  a  period  too  early  for  them  to  have  originated 
and  come  into  use  after  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age. 

The  absence  of  quotations  from  the  three  short  personal 
epistles,  Philemon,  Jude  and  III.  John;  and  the  absence  of 
any  earlier  than  the  time  of  Irenjeus  from  James  and  II.  John, 
can  not  be  fairly  construed  as  proof  that  they  were  not  known 
to  those  early  writers:  for  first,  the  extant  writings  of  all  these 
authors  beyond  Irenrcus  arc  very  brief,  the  whole  of  them  cov- 
ering less  than  four  hundred  octavo  pages,  and  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  the  quotations  which  they  had  occasion  to  make 
failed  to  take  the  whole  range  of  the  New  Testament  books; 
second,  these   epistles,  with   the   exception    of  James,  are   the 

*  Wi!  have  especial  reference  here  it  very  great  vahie  in  this  discus- 

to  the  WTitingH  of  Ignatius  and  the  sion,  and  the  genuineness  of   the 

letter  to  Diognetus.     The  early  date  former  is  yet  a  warmly  contested 

of  the  latter  is  too  uncertain  to  give  qneHti<»n  among  Christian  scholars. 


NKW    rKsr  VMK.NT  IJOOKS.  Ill 

very  books  of  the  New  Testament  which,  from  that  day  to 
this,  have  been  most  rarely  quoted  by  Christian  writers. 
While  the  evidence  from  quotations,  then,  can  not  be  arrayed 
in  favor  of  these  books  in  this  early  period,  the  want  of  it  can 
not  be  held  as  evidence  against  them. 

The  force  and  vahie  of  the  evidence  from  quotations  can  be  Acompari- 

•         1    •/>  1-1  /,  '■'on  with 

more  properly  ai)prcciated  it  we  compare  the  evidence  from  ancient 
the  same  source  for  some  of  the  most  noted  classical  writings  ^'*"'*^- 
of  antiquity.  The  writings  of  Herodotus,  the  most  famous  of 
Greek  historians,  are  quoted  by  only  one  author  (Ctesias)  in 
the  first  century  after  they  were  written,  by  only  one  (Aristotle) 
in  the  second,  by  none  in  the  third,  and  by  only  two  in  the 
fourth.  Thucydides,  second  among  Greek  historians,  is  not 
quoted  at  all  during  the  first  two  centuries  after  he  wrote ; 
Livy,  the  early  Roman  historian,  is  quoted  by  only  one  writer 
in  the  first  hundred  years,  and  the  first  to  quote  Tacitus  isTer- 
tiillian,  who  wrote  about  100  years  later.'  If,  then,  our  task 
had  been  to  trace  back  to  their  authors  the  works  of  these  cele- 
brated writers,  works  the  genuineness  of  which  is  never  called 
in  question,  the  case  which  we  could  make  for  them  would  be 
weakness  itself  compared  with  that  which  we  have  made  for 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 

'The  facts  jiave  l)pon   colli-ctcfl  tory,  in  liis  work  entitled  Historical 

by    the  learned     and    painstaking  Evidences    of     Christianity.     Lecture 

George  Rawlinson,    one    of     the  vi.  n.  9. 

greatest  masters    of    ancient    his- 


CHAPTER   IV. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


Nature  of 
this  evi- 
dence. 


Proper 
method  of 
inquiry; 


The  claim  of  authorship  which  a  book  sets  forth  on  its 
own  pages  lia.s  a  presumption  in  its  favor.  It  is  the  same  pre- 
sumption which  attaches  in  law  to  a  will  or  a  deed  when  writ- 
ten and  signed  in  due  form.  It  is  not  proof,  but  in  the  absence 
of  proof  to  the  contrary  it  stands  good.  The  evidence  neces- 
sary to  set  it  aside  or  to  confirm  it,  may  be  external,  or  inter- 
nal, or  both.  External  evidence  is  that  derived  from  other 
sources  than  the  book  itself.  It  is  that  with  respect  to  the 
New  Testament,  which  we  have  already  considered.  Internal 
evidence  is  that  found  in  the  contents  of  the  book.  If  events 
are  mentioned  in  it,  or  alluded  to  as  having  transpired,  which 
reallv  took  place  after  the  siipj)()sed  author's  death,  or  which, 
for  any  other  cause,  could  not  have  been  known  to  him  ;  or  if 
words  are  employed  which  did  not  come  into  use  until  after  his 
death,  the  claim  is  disproved.  If  no  such  evidence  is  found, 
and  if,  on  the  contrary,  evidence,  in  support  of  the  claim  is 
found,  tlie  pr('sunij)tion  is  turned  into  proof  From  the  nature 
of  the  case,  liowcvci',  internal  evidence  is  nuieli  more  effective, 
and  mueli  more  commonly  eniploved  in  dis|>n>ving  the  claims 
of  spurious  books,  than  in  estal)lisliin<r  those  of  the  genuiiu' : 
for  it  is  extremely  difficult  for  one  w  riter  to  personate  another, 
and  especially  another  belonging  to  a  different  country  and  a 
different  age,  without  betraying  himself  in  unguarded  mo- 
ments, and  even  failing  in  the  prominent  features  of  the  imi- 
tation. 

Th(!  proper  method  of  procedure  in  this  inquiry  is  to  first 
presume  that  the  book  is  genuine,  and  then  search  its  pages  for 

(112) 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  113 

evidence  jL»/-o  uud  con.,  allowing  the  prepondemnce  of  evidence 
to  decide  the  question.  J5ut  the  decision  thus  reached  is  not 
final  until  the  internal  evidence  is  considered  in  connection 
with  the  external.  A  slight  prepondemnce  of  evidence  from 
either  source  may  be  overbalanced  by  weightier  evidence  from 
the  other ;  or  both  sources  may  unite  in  support  of  one  con- 
elusion. 

We  now  proceed  to  collect  out  of  the  several  books  of  the^^®***'' 

.  1-1  PI-  •  proposed. 

New  Testament  the  internal  evidence  of  their  genuineness, 
and  we  shall  sec  whether  or  not  this  supports  the  external  evi- 
dence which  we  have  already  considered.  In  doing  so  we 
shall  not  attempt  to  be  exhaustive,  but,  as  in  the  former  case, 
we  shall  present  only  those  prominent  evidences  on  which  the 
decision  chiefly  depends. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew.     This  book  contains  no  ex- ^'*^"^*^^'' 
pre&s  statement  of  its  date  or  its  authorship  :  and  the  same  is''  isanony- 
true  of  all  the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament.     It  is 
true  likewise  of  the  same  class  of  books  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  of  ancient  historical   works  in   general.     As  regards  its 
date,  however,  the  book  of  Matthew  confines  itself  within  very 
narrow  limits  and  it  contains  some  confirmation  of  tlie  external 
evidences  as  to  its  authorship.     It  incidentally  claims  to  have  J^'""'"®"  ^^' 
been  written   l)efore  the  destruction   of  Jerusiilem,  which  oc-of  Jemsa- 
curred  a.  d.  70,  by  giving  as  unfulfilled  prophecy  the  j)redic- *'^"' 
tion  of  Jesus  concerning  that  event,  (xxiv   1-28.)     Had  this 
prophecy  been  fulfilled  when  the  book  was  written,  the  author 
could  not  have  failed  to  mention   the  fact,  because  it  would 
have  been  a  strong  confirmation  of  his  own  testimony  in  favor 
of  Jesus.     Moreover,  he   included  in  the  prophecy,  and  most 
pro])al)ly  he  himself  inserted  it,  a  ])arenthetical  note  of  warn- 
ing, by  which  the  Jewish  disciples  of  Jesus  might  be  prepared 
to  escape  from  the  city  on  the  eve  of  its  destruction.     It  is 
quite  certain  from  these  considerations  that,  unless  the  author 
was  guilty  of  a  fraudulent  pretense,  the  book  was  written   be- 
fore the  year  70.     On  the  other  hand,  there  is  conclusive  evi-*"**  *""'"' 

^  ,  ,  bf  r  of  years 

dence  that  it  was  written  a  number  of  years  after  the  death  of  after  the 
Jesus.     The  author  says  concerning  the  spot  where  Judas  hung '^'^"'*'°  ■'*'' 
himsi'lf,  '*  That  field   was  culled  the  field  of  blood,  unto  this 


114 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE 


Confirma- 
tory 
evidence. 


Mark: 
before  A.  D 
70;  after 
the  disper- 
sion of  the 
Apostles. 


(lay ;  "  and  concerning  the  assertion  of  the  guards  at  the  sep- 
ulchre, that  the  disciples  of  Jesus  came  by  night  and  stole  his 
body  away,  he  says,  "  This  saying  was  spread  abroad  among 
the  Jews  until  this  day."  These  passages  show  that  the  book 
was  written  a  sufficient  length  of  time  after  its  closing  events 
to  make  it  worthy  of  remark  that  the  story  of  the  guards,  was 
still  in  circulation,  and  that  the  name  "  field  of  blood  "  was 
still  in  use.  This  implies  the  expiration  of  a  large  portion  of 
the  thirty-four  years  that  intervened  between  the  death  of 
Jesus  and  the  final  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  it  throws  the  date 
of  Matthew's  Gospel  into  the  latter  lialf  of  this  period.  We 
know  nothing  more  definite  as  to  the  date. 

In  confirmation  of  the  reputed  autliorship,  we  find  in  the 
book  a  few  peculiarities  which  can  scarcely  be  accounted  for 
on  any  other  liypothesis.  For  example,  while  the  other  wri- 
ters, in  their  lists  of  the  Apostles,  give  IMatthew's  name  with- 
out the  opprobrious  epithet,  "  the  })ublican,"  an  omission  quite 
proper  under  the  circumstances,  this  writer,  with  a  humility 
equally  proper,  if  Matthew  is  he,  gives  it,  "  Matthew  tlie  pub- 
lican." *  Again,  in  speaking  of  the  feast  which  Matthew  gave 
after  his  call  to  follow  Jesus,  Mark  and  Luke  both  speak  of  it 
as  "  in  his  house,"  while  this  writer,  as  is  natural  Avith  the 
owner  of  the  house,  says,  "in  the  house."  ^  These  circum- 
stances, from  their  very  minuteness,  tend  strongly  to  confirm 
the  preceding  evidence  that  Matthew  was  the  author. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark.  This  Gospel  treats  the  Saviour's 
predictions  concerning  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
same  way  as  does  Matthew's,  and  by  the  same  process  of  rea- 
soning it  is  proved  to  liuve  been  written  before  that  event.  It 
was  also  written  after  the  general  dispersion  abroad  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  execution  of  their  commission  ;  for  it  closes 
with  the  statement  that  "  They  went  forth  and  preached  every- 
where, the  Lord  working  with  them  and  confirming  the  word 
by  the  signs  that  followed."  Its  date  therefore  was  early 
enough  for  its  reputed  authorship,  and  it  was  not  far  from  that 
of  Matth(!w's  Gospel. 

'Mark  iii.  18;  T.ukevi.  15;  Acts       "Mark    ii.    15,    16;   Luke   v.   29, 
i.  1.3,  romp.  Matt.  x.  2.  comp.  Matt.  ix.  !»,  10. 


Ni:\\    TESTAMENT  15()()KS.  115 

The  external  evidence  that  it  was  written  hy  Mark  for  the^°"^™*" 
purpose  of  presenting  the  story  of  Jesus  as  it  was  habitually  evidence. 
preached  by  Peter,  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  it  Peter  is 
made  much  less  conspicuous  than  in  the  other  Gospels.  While 
it  does  not  fail  to  relate  those  incidents  which  arc  discreditable 
to  Peter,  even  the  denial  of  his  Lord,  it  omits  nearly  all  of 
those  that  are  creditable  to  him,  such  as  the  high  commenda- 
tion of  him  by  Jesus  after  his  celebrated  confessi(Ju,  the  prom- 
ise to  him  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  the  catching  of  the 
fish  with  money  in  its  mouth,  and  the.  fact  that  Peter  was  the 
first  Apostle  to  see  the  risen  Lord'.  It  also  omits  his  name  in 
describing  his  courageous  attack  upon  the  band  who  came  to 
arrest  Jesus  in  the  garden,  saying  only  that  ''  a  certain  one  of 
them  "  did  this.' 

The  Gospel  of   Luke.     The  evidence  that  this  Gospel  ^^'^^^ 

1  •       1  before  A.  D. 

was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  the  same  as70; 
in  the  case  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  except  that  in  the  report  of 
the  prediction  of  that  event,  he  omits  the  warning,  "  Let  him 
that  readeth  understand."^     It  was  written  before  the  book  of'^'^*''™ 

Acts; 

Acts  by  the  same  author,  and  there  is  internal  evidence  that  wiuie  the 
the  latter  was  written   in  the  year  63.^     ^^  was  written  early  "^""j^^ggg^.^ 
enough  for  the  author  to  have  consulted  the  original  witnesses  were  living. 
of  the  events  which  it  records;  for  he  claims  these  witnesses  as 
his  sources  of  information.'*     It  was  written,  then,  early  enough 
for  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  to  have  been  its  author,  as 
the  external  evidence  declares. 

The  Gospel  of  John.  This  Gospel  claims  to  have  been  John: 
written  by  one  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  "  the  disciple  whom  the  tweivo; 
Jesus  loved."  Near  the  close  its  says  :  "  This  is  the  disciple 
who  bears  witness  of  these  things  and  wrote  these  things  ; " 
and  the  reference  is  to  the  disciple  just  before  montioned  as  the 
one  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  who  leaned  on  his  breast  at  the 
last  supper.*     Now  there  are  only  three  of  the  twelve  whom 

'Matt.   xvi.   1(>-1!»;    xvii.  24-27,  our  remarks  on    the   date  of  this 

Luke  xxiv.  12,  .34;  Mark  xiv.  47.  book,  page  117. 

■■'  Luke  xxi.  20,  coinp.  Matt.  xxiv.       *  Luke  i.  1-4. 
15;  Mark  xiii.  14.  Mohn  xxi.  24;  comp.  20-2.3;  xiii. 

'Acts  of  Apostles  i.  1  ;    and  see  23-25,  xx.  2-0;  xix.  2(>. 


116  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

theaiiu-      Jesus  received  into  such  intimacy  that  one  of  them  could  be 

sions  to  the  i         t      •    i  i  i      *  i  i        mi  ti   j. 

author  suit  Known  as  the  disciple  whom  he  loved,  ihese  were  Teter, 
John  alone,  james  and  John,  the  three  who  alone  were  permitted  to  wit- 
ness the  transfiguration,  whom  alone  he  took  with  him  into  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane,  and  whom  he  especially  honored  on 
other  occasions,'  But  the  one  whom  he  loved  can  not  have 
been  Peter,  seeing  that  he  is  especially  distinguished  from 
Peter  in  the  statement  that  "  Peter,  turning  about,  seeth  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  following,"  etc.^  Neither  can  James 
have  been  the  one  thus  designated,  for  he  was  beheaded  by 
Herod  long  previous  to  the  earliest  date  that  can  be  assigned 
to  this  Gospel.^  Furthermore,  while  all  the  other  writers  in 
speaking  of  John  the  Baptist,  give  him  his  title  to  distinguish 
him  from  John  the  Apostle,  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  alone 
refers  to  him  simply  as  John,  a  circumstance  to  be  accounted 
for  only  by  the  fact  that  this  writer  was  the  other  John. 

This  method  of  designating  himself  contains  very  strong 
and  are  un-  evidence  of  the  author's  sincerity  :  for  a  spurious  writer  of  a 
spurious     later  period  could  scarcely  conceive  of  such  a  method,  but, 
authorship,  j^gj.  ^j^g  reader  should  fail  to   recognize  him  as  .the  Apostle 
John,  he  would  have  written  openly  under  that  name,  after 
the  manner  of  the  spurious  Gospels  of  the  second  century.* 
Sl^dat?°*        The  principal  internal  evidence  as  to  the  date  of  this  Gos- 
pel is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  diifers  so  widely  in  its  subject 
matter  from  the  other  three,  thus  indicating  that  its  author  knew 
tlie  contents  of  the  others,  and  that  it  was  written  after  these 
had  became  so  widely  circulated  as  to  make  it  superfluous  to 
reiterate  what  they  had  made  known.     This  wide  divergence 
faterThan    ^^^^  ^^^  Other  three  Gospels  is  proof  not  only  of  a  later  date 
John's        than  theirs,  but  also  of  a  date  too  early  and  of  an  authorshij) 
too  authoritative  for  a  spurious  document :  for  if  the  three  pre- 
vious Gospels  had  alone  gone  down  to  a  late  period  as  the  ac- 

'  Matt.  xvii.  1  ;  xxvi.  36,  37;  Mark  44,  only  ten  years  after  the  death 

V.  .'i7.  of  Jesus.     Atitirjuitien,  XIX.,  viii.  2. 

■•^  Jolin  xxi.  20.  *Thi8  line  of   evidence  is  pre- 

'  Acts  xii.   ].      This  event,  soon  scnted    clearly    and    strongly    by 

followed  by  the  death  of  Herod,  is  Prof.  Geo.  P.  Fishor.     Sit/jfrnutural 

known  by  the  statements  of  Jose-  Origin  of  Christianity,  84-86. 
phus  to  have  occurred  in  tlie  year 


XEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  117 

roptoc]  rooord  of  tlic  career  of  Jesus,  no  man  in  attempting  to 
write  a  Gospel  in  the  name  of  John  wouhl  have  ventured  to 
depart  so  witlely  from  them,  or  if  he  had,  his  book  would  have 
been  rejected  at  once  as  a  forger\'.  Its  very  divergence  from 
the  other  Gospels  is  no  mean  proof,  under  the  circumstances,  of 
its  apostolic  authorship.' 

Acts  of  Apostles.     This  book  claims  to  have  been  writ- acts: 
ten  by  the  same  author  as  the  third  Gospel,  and  it  incidentally,  the  Ruthor 
by  the  use  of  the  pronouns  "  we  "  and  "us,"  represents  its  ^^Yuk^^  *" 
author  as  being  an  actor  in  many  of  the  scenes  which  it  de- Gospel; 
scribes.^     The  external   evidence  that  its  author  was  Luke  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  obtained  from  two  of  Paul's  epistles, 
that  he  was  a  companion  of  Paul  as  the  narrative  represents,  ^"  *'^*°'' '" 

1       .  .  1      .  i       rni        1  /•  •    •  11  'the  events; 

during  its  closing  scenes.  ihc  date  or  composition  could  not 
have  been  earlier  than  the  last  event  mentioned  in  the  book, 
Paul's  two   vears  imprisonment,  which  terminated   a.  d.  6,3  date  uot  be- 

*        .  .  ^O"*  63,  nor 

Neither  could  it  well  have  been  later  than  this  :  for  the  last  later, 
four  chapters  of  it  are  occupied  with  a  very  interesting  account 
of  proceedings  and  journeys  consequent  upon  Paul's  appeal  to 
Csesar  from  the  rulings  of  Festus  ;  and  after  dwelling  so  long 
ujx)n  this  subject  it  would  have  been  a  most  unnatural  termin- 
ation of  the  narrative  to  have  omitted  the  final  decision,  had 
it  been  rendered  when  the  book  left  the  author's  hands.  It 
would  have  been  like  the  sudden  close  of  a  drama  or  of  a  novel 
just  previous  to  the  winding  up  of  the  plot ;  or  the  close  of 
the  history  of  some  celebrated  jury  trial  without  giving  the 
verdict  of  the  jury.  The  internal  evidence  therefore  fixes  the 
date  at  the  end  of  the  second  year  of  Paul's  Koman  imprison- 
ment, which  was  the  spring  of  the  year  63.^ 

'For  a  full  and    forcible    state-  ilenee  is  conclusive  that  it  was  dtir- 

nient  of  this  evidence,  see  the  work  ing  the  imprisonment  spoken  of  in 

last  cited,  !>",  98.  the  closing  sentences  of  Acts. 

*  .Vets  i.  1,  2;  xvi.  10,  17;  xx.  r»,  ^The    accession    of     Festus    oc- 

H,  1!} ;  xxi.  1,  7,  15;  x.wii.  1  ;  xxviii.  curreil    in    the   year    60.     In    the 

1,  11,  lt>.  autumn  of  the  same  year  Paul  was 

'Col.  iv.  15;  Philemon  '24.  sent  ^to  Home  (.^cts  xxvii.  0) ;  he 
These  epistles  were  both  written  passed  the  winter  of  (>0-61  in  Mel- 
while  Paul  was  a  prisoner  (Col.  iv.  ita,  reaching  Home  in  the  spring 
3,  10;  Philemon      2:5),  and  the  evi-  of  Gl  ^xxviii.  11-14);   and  he  re- 


118 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


Evidence 
from  refer- 
ence to  the 
Herods. 


Paul's  13 
Epistles  : 
written  in 
his  name, 
and  reflect- 
ing his  ex- 
periences. 


Another  internal  evidence  of  the  early  date  of  Acts,  is  the 
manner  in  which  the  author  sj)euks  of  members  of  the  Herod 
family.  Nothing  is  more  puzzling  to  the  modern  reader  who 
is  not  familiar  with  the  secular  history  of  that  period,  than  the 
way  in  wliich  these  men  are  spoken  of  in  the  Gospels  and 
Acts.  For  example,  the  author  of  Acts  and  of  the  third  Gos- 
pel has  "  Herod  the  King  "  reigning  before  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist ;  then  he  has  "  Herod  the  tetrarch  "  imprisoning 
and  killing  John ;  then  Jesus  is  sent  by  Pilate  to  "  Herod ; " 
then  the  Apostle  James  is  slain  by  "  Herod  the  King;  "  and 
finally  Paul  is  brought  before  "  King  Agrippa  ;"  yet  there  is 
not  a  line  of  description  to  distinguish  these  Herods  from  one 
another,  or  to  show  their  relationship.  A  writer  of  his  care- 
fulness in  other  matters  could  not  have  written  thus  unless  he 
was  Avriting  when  these  princes  were  still  well  known,  and 
therefore  in  the  very  generation  to  which  the  majority  of  them 
belonged. 

Paul's  Thirteen  Epistles.  All  of  the  epistles  usually 
ascribed  to  Paul,  with  the  exception  of  that  to  the  Hebrews, 
contain  the  name  of  Paul  as  the  writer,  not  subscribed  at  the 
close,  after  the  modern  cu-stom,  but  according  to  the  ancient 
custom  embodied  in  the  opening  salutation.  They  contain 
also  many  allusions  to  the  author's  personal  experiences  agree- 
ing with  what  is  known  of  Paul  through  other  sources,  and 
thus  they  bear  all  the  internal  marks  by  whitrh  the  genuine- 
ness of  epistolary  documents  of  a  ])ast  age  is  tested.'     Their 


mained  there  in  prison  two  whole 
years  (xxviii.  30)  which  extended 
to  tlie  spring  of  (i:5. 

'  There  is  evidence  furnished  by 
some  of  th(!  epistli-s,  tliat  I'aul 
usually  dictatetl  to  an  amanuensis", 
hut  that,  in  order  to  certify  the 
genuineness  of  liis  epistles  by  his 
handwriting,  he  wrote  with  his 
own  hand  the  closing  palutations. 
In  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Romans  the 
name  of  the  amanuensis  is  given 
(xvi.  22),  and  that  he  employed 
one  hahitnally,  yet  always  wrote 


with  his  own  liand  the  salutation 
appears  from  IT.  Thess.  iii.  17: 
"The  salutation  of  me  Paul  with 
mine  own  hand,  which  is  the  token 
in  every  epistle  :  so  I  write."  In 
Oalatiuns  he  makes  the  remark, 
"  See  with  how  large  letters  I  have 
written  to  you  with  mine  own 
hand,"  which  probably  refers  to 
the  whole  epistle,  making  this  an 
exception  to  his  rule.  This  evi- 
dence is  lost  to  us  in  the  loss  of 
the  autographs. 


NKW  TKSTAMKNT  HOOKS.  ll!l 

several  dates  are  fixed  with  a  tjood  degree  of  acciiraev  hetween 
the  years  52  and  68. 

Thk  Epistle  to  thp:  Hebrews.     Unlike  all   the  other  "*^""^^^^- 

I  •!  1  T-»  1  1    •  •  I  •  HUOIIV- 

epistles  ascrined   to   raul,  tins  one   is  anonymous.      Jt    is   notmous: 
addressed   lormallv   to  anv   individual   or   coniniunitv,  and    Jt  ^^""en  f""" 

'  '  IIi'tire\v< 

is  known   to  have  been  intended   for  Hebrew  readers  onlv  bv 
its    arguments.      Notwithstanding    these    peculiarities,    it  has 
enough  of  the  eharaeteristies   of  an  epistle  to  be   properly  so 
called.     It  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  before  the 
a])pears  from  its  frequent  references  to  the  temple  service  aSofjeruFa" 
being  still  in  existence;^  and  from  the  consideration,  that  had^^"^- 
the  city  been  destroyed  and  the  temple  worship  thus  abolished, 
the  author  could  not  have  failed,  in  his  elaborate  argument  on 
the  temporary  nature  of  that  service  and  of  the  Jewish  priest- 
hood (chapters  vii.-x.)  to  make  use  of  the  fact. 

As  to  its  author,  the  external  evidence,  as  we  have  seen  in ''>" «» imi- 

/■'i  rn  •I'T'iii  1  1  ..„  mate  friend 

(.  Iia])ter  J  liird,  is  divuled,  but  the  prej)onderance  is  in  fiivor  of  of  Timothy 

Paul,"  and  the  internal  evidence  points  in  the  same  direction.  "'^'^ '^^^"'"'^ 
.  ,  the  latter's 

It  was  written    l)y  one  who  sustained  very  intimate  relations  death: 

with  Timothy,  as  appears  from  the  statement  (xiii.  23.).  "  Know 

ye  that  our  brother  Timothy  hath  been   set  at  libertv,  with 

whom,  if  he  come   shortly,  I  will    see  you  ;  "  and    the  writer 

himself  had  been  in  some  trouble  from  which  he  was  not  vet 

entirely  freed,  as  appears  from  his  ref|uest,  "  Prav  for  us     . 

.     .     that  I  may  be  restored  to  you  the  sooner"  (xiii.  18,  19.). 

These  allusions  point  to  Paul  as  the  author,  and  thev  show  that  >"«'^"'^^'f"K 

•*      _  '  •  before  the 

the  Epistle  was  written  before  the  death  of  Timothv.     On  the  preceding 
other  hand,  it  c(/ntains  some  allusions  which  ])()int  to  a  date  as^^'^"^''' 

'  See  Heb.  viii.  4 ;  ix.  <)-n;  x.  II,  cfcMlited   by  some   to   Clement  of 

12;  xiii.  10,  11.  Rome,  and  by  others  to  Luke  (p. 

'^  The  sum  of    tlie  exterriitl  evi-  07);   Clement   of    Alexandria  says 

(lence  on  this  point  already  given  that   it  was  written  by   Paul   but 

in    Chapter  Third    is  as  follows:  translated    into   Greek    by   Luke, 

Tlie  Council  of  Carthage  ascribes  Paul's  name  being  suppressed  to 

it  to  Paul  (p.  00);  Eusebius  does  make  it  more  aceeptable  to  Jewish 

the  same,  but  says  that  the  chureh  readers  (p.  70) ;  Tertullian  ascribes 

at  Rome  did  not  (p.  04,  and  n.  8);  it  to  Barnabas  (p.  72)  ;  and  Ironanis 

Origen  ascribes  tb(>  matter  to  Paul,  is  represented  on  doubtfid  nutlior- 

bnt  the  composition  to  some  other  ity  as  denying  that  it  was  written 

person,  and  says  that  it  had  been  by  Paul      ]'s\in'  .<7.  u.  2. 


120  c;ExrixENn;ss  of  the 

late  as  the  preceding  facts  can  well  allow.  First,  the  writer 
rebukes  his  readers  because  they  needed  to  be  taught  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  though  "  by  reason  of  time" 
they  ought  to  be  teachers  (v.  12.)  Second,  he  asks  them  to 
remember  the  former  days  in  which,  after  they  were  enlight- 
ened, they  endured  a  great  conflict  of  sufferings  (x.  32-34.) 
Third,  he  exhorts  them   to  remember  their  deceased  .spiritual 

probably  fuiers,  aud  to  imitate  their  faith  (xiii.  7.)  All  of  tlicsc  allu- 
sions agree  very  well  with  tlie  supposition  tliat  Paul  was  the 
writer,  and  they  suggest  no  other  person.  They  also  indicate 
the  close  of  his  two  years  imprisonment  in  Rome,  a.  d.  03,  as 
the  probable  date  of  the  composition. 

James;  The  Epistle  OF  J  AMES.     This  document  claims  to  have 

been  written  by  "  James  a  bond-servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  twelve  tribes  who  are  of  the  Disper- 

eitherthc    .sion "  (i.     1.)       The    hidi    authority    with    which    he    si)eaks 

son  of  Al-  ^  ■  ^ ,  .  .  •  .   ,  •   1       T  1 

phiTus,  or    throughout  the   Epistle,  identifies  hiui   cither  with  James  the 

brothel*^'  Apostle,  son  of  Alphreus  (Luke  vi.  15),  or  with  the  James  who 

so  long  j)residcd  oyer  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  xii.  17; 

xxi.    18;  Gal.   ii.    12)  and   was  called    by    Paul  "the    Lord's 

J[;;;Jf^';;;' '' brother  "  (Gal.  i.  19  ;  ii.  i).)     It   is  still  an  unsettled  (piestion 

(linvnut.     whether  these  two  are  the  simc  or  diil'crent  persons;'  but  it  is 

generally  agreed   that    if  they  arc  different  the  latter  is  the 

author  of  the  Epistle.     He  suffered  martyrdom  in  Jerusalem 

A.D.  63,^  and  consequently  the  Epistle  must  have  been  written 

|)revious  to  this  date.      That  it  was  written  in  Palestine,  where 

fore  w,  and 'liimes  resided,   is  cyid<nt    from   its   local   allusions.      For  in- 

in  Pales-     stance,  in  ids  comparison  of  a  rich  man  to  a  Howcrof  the  Held, 

he  says:  ''The  sun  ariscth  with   the  scorching  wind  and  with- 

ereth  the  grass ;  and  the  flower  liiereof  falleth,  and  the  grace 

of  the  fashion  of  it    ])erisheth  "     (i.  11.)     This  is  an  allusion 

to  the  green  grass  and  the  profusion  of  wild  flowers  that  cover 

the  .surface  of  Palestine  in  the  early  spring,  but    wither  and 

'For  the  arguments  on   tiie   af-  Lijrhtfoot's  Comiiientary  on  Gala- 

firniative  of  this  (pu'.stiou,  see  tlie  tians. 

article  on  .James  in  Smilti's  IJihh"  ^Joseplius,     A»l.,    XX.,    ix.    1; 

Dictionary;  and  for  those  on  the  Karrar,  Enrti/  Ifai/H, 'M)2. 
negative,  see  an  (>ssay  appcudcil  to 


NK\\'  TKSTAMKNT  BOOKS.  121 

perish  as  the  hot  sun  aud  desert  winds  come  upon  them  soon 
after  the  close  of  the  rainy  season.  Again,  when  he  demands, 
"  Can  a  fig  tree  yiehl  olives,  or  a  vine  tigs  "  (iii.  12),  he  de- 
rives his  figures  from  the  three  most  abundant  fruits  of  Pales- 
tine ;  and  when  lie  speaks  of  the  husbandman  being  patient 
until  he  receives  "  the  early  and  the  latter  rain  "  (iv.  7),  he 
alludes  to  the  early  rain  of  autumn  which  in  Palestine  is  neces- 
•sary  to  early  sowing,  aud  the  latter  rain  of  spring  without 
which  the  dry  season  .sets  in  too  soon  for  the  grain  to  mature. 

The  Two  Epistles  of  Peter.     The  first  of  these  two^'""^'"" 
Epistles  is  written  in  the  name  of  "'  Peter  an  Apostle  of  Jesus*'*"'"  '"^"^ 
Christ"  (i.   1);  and  in  it  the  author  speaks  of  himself  as  "  a 
witness  of  the  suif'erings  of  Christ  "  (v.  1  ).    Its  date  is  indi- 
cated proximately  by  tiiree  considerations:  First,  it  was  ad-"^'"'^' 
dre.s.sed  to  the  disciples  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  .Vsia 
and  Bithynia  (i.  1  ),  regions  which  were  evangelized  by  Paul 
and  his  associates ;  and  consequently  it  must  have  been  written 
after  those  churches  had  been  established,  and  after  tiieir  con- 
dition  had    become    known  to   Peter.     Paul  ck)sed  his  labors 
there  on  leaving  Ejjhesus  in  the  spring  of  A.  D.  57.     Second,  it 
was  written  after  Peter  had  read  Paul's  Ej)istles  to  the  Romans 
and  the  Ephesians ;  for  tlie  author  adopts  many  of  the  }»i'culiar 
expressions  of  Paul  from  these  two  Epistles.'    Third,  as  Eplie- 
sians  was  written  a.  D.  62,  and  Peter's  death  occurred  in  68,  the 
Epistle  must  have  been  written  between  these  dates.     It  was 
written  from  Babylon  (v.  13);  but  whether  from  the  real  Baby- "*" ''"^'^ 
Ion,  or  from  Rome  figuratively  called  Babylon,  is  a  (|n(stion  of 
long-continued  controversy  and  still  unsettled. 

I'he  Second  Epistle  is  also  written  in  the  name  of  J^'ter,  the"  ''"^"  = 

'  Tlu'    reader  can    see   the    full  I.  I'tt.  ii.  l:\,c<i)ii/i.  lUnn.  xiii.  1-4. 

force  of  this  evidence  by  coiiipur-  I.  I'ct.  ii.  IS,  cotitj).  \\\>h.  vi.  5. 

ing  the   follow inj;   i)assuj,'es   in    I.  I.  IVt.  iii.  1,  romp,  f'.ph.  v.  22. 

Peter  with  tho.^e   set  opposite    to  I.  Pet.  iii.  !),  nunp.  Uoiii.  xvi.  17. 

ihein  in  Romans  and  E|ihesian.s;  I.  Pet.  iii.  22, romp.  Eph.  i.  20,  iioni. 
I.  Pet.  i.  1,  camp.  ICpli.  i.  4-7.  viii.  '.U. 

I    Pet.  i.  3,  comp.  Ei-h.  i.  :].  I.  Pet.  iv.  1,  Horn.  vi.  (>. 

1.  F'jt.  i.  14,  comp.  Eph   ii.  S,  Koin.  T.  Pet.  iv.  10,  Horn.  xii.  (i 

xii.  2.  I.  Pet.  V   1,  romp.  Koni.  viii.  18 

I.  Pet.  ii.  6- 10,  cow/).  Kom.  ix.  25-82.  I.  Pet.  v.  5,  romp.  Epli.  v.  21. 
I.  Pet.  ii.  1,  ri,mi>.  Koni.  vii.  2:!. 


122  GENUINENESS   OP'   THE 

author  styling  himself  "  Simon  Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of 
its  author,  Jesus  Christ";  and  besides  the  formal  salutation  in  Peter's 
name,  the  author  alludes  to  the  Saviour's  prediction  concerning 
the  manner  of  his  death  (i.  14,comp.  John  xxi.  18);  to  his  pres- 
ence at  the  transfiguration  of  Jesus  (i.  18) ;  and  to  his  having 
its  date.  written  the  previous  epistle  to  the  same  disciples  (iii.  1).  Con- 
firmation of  these  formal  indications  of  authorship  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  Second  Epistle  contains  many  of  the  charac- 
teristic expressions  of  the  First,  and  of  Peter's  speeches  re- 
corded in  Acts  of  Apostles.' 

As  the  First  was  written  in  the  year  62  and  Peter  died  in  ' 
68,  the  date  of  the  Second  can  not  be  much  later  than  that  of 
the  First :  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  the  exact  year. 
jcDF.:  The  Epistle  of  Jude.     This  brief  document  claims  as 

liisidenti-   its  author  "Judas  the  brother  of  James. "     There    is   some 
^>'  doubt  as  to  whether  he  was  Judas  the  Apostle  (liuke  vi.  16  ; 

John  xiv.  22)  or  the  Judas  who  was  one  of  the  Lord's  brothers 
(Mark  vi.  3).  If  the  correct  rendering  of  Luke  vi.  16  were 
"  Judas  brother  of  James,"  this  would  identifv  him  as  the 
Apostle;  for  here  he  gives  himself  this  title.  But  the  general 
usage  of  the  Greek  language  is  against  that  rendering  (the 
Greek  words  are  'lo'jouu  ' Iaxib[-io<j)  and  in  favor  of  the  render- 
ing *'  Judas  WW  of  James."  Again,  it  has  been  held  by  some 
that  the  James  whose  brother  he  was,  is  James  the  Apostle, 
i-reviiient  son  of  Alplueus;  but  this  is  liighly  improbable.  The  prepon- 
derance of  opinion  is  that  he  was  l)rother  of  the  James  called 
the  Lord's  brother,  and  consetjuently  himself  a  brother  of  the 
Lord,  and  that  he  desi<>nates  himself  by  the  former  title  rather 
tlian  by  the  latter,  because  it  was  more  modest  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  Ijord  had  long  ago  ascended  to  heaven.^  It  is 
confirmatory  of  this  view,  that   he  omits  to  style  himself  an 

'Tlio    list    iA    references  is  too  in    liis  Earhj  DaijK  of  Chrhtianity ; 

long  for  insertion  here.     It  may  be  and  by  Prof.  Lniiiby,  Intro,  to  Jude, 

found  complete  in  tiie  Introduction  Blhlc  Com,     Tlie  whole  subject  of 

to  II.  I'eter  l)y  I'rof.  Liimby,  in  the  The  Brothers  of  the  Lord   is  dis- 

Bible  Comnn'ntary.  cussed  with  great  aliility  and  clear- 

*The    arguments  on  this  ques-  ness  by  Lightfoot  in  an  essay  ap- 

tioti  are  more  fully  stated  by  Far-  pended    to    his    Commentary    on 

rar  in   the  chapter  on  this  epistle  Galatians. 


NKW    TESTAMENT  HouKS.  123 

Apostle,  and  that  he  rather  distinguishes  himself  from  the 
Apostles  by  speaking  of  the  latter  in  the  third  person,  saying, 
"  Remember  the  words  wliieh  have  been  spoken  before  by  the 
Apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

This  Epistle  bears  no  internal  evidenee  of  date  except  that  ^^'"^^^ce  o/ 

(late, 
it  was  written  after  the  ehureh  had  become  infested  bv  a  large 

number    of    desperately    wicked     men     (4-12).    Its   striking 

similarity    to    the    second    chapter   of    II.    Peter   shows   that 

one  of  the  two  writers  had  seen   the  other's   Epistle  and  made 

much   use   of  its  material.     If  it  could   be   determined  with 

certainty  which  is  the  older  of  the  two,  this  would  help  to  fix 

the  date  of  Jude ;  but   the  question,  though   long  debated,  is 

still  unsettled.' 

The  Three  Epistles  of  Johx.     These  three  Epistles,  epistles  bf 
like  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  the  same  author,  are  written  with- their 
nut  a  name,  but  the  first  i)aragraph  of  the  First  Epistle  clearly  *""'°"'''p 
implies   that   it  was  written    by  an    Apostle,  while   identity  of 
style  and  diction    indicates  that  all  three  came  from  the  same 
writer,  and   from   the  writer  of  the   Gospel."     They  were   all 
three  written  late  in  the  life  of  their  author,  and  at  a  period  in 
the  history  of  the  church  which  implies  a  long  life  on  his  part. 
See  I.  John  ii.  6-f 8 ;  iv.  1  ;  II.  John  1,  5,  6;  III.  John  1,  4. 

Revelation.     This  book  claims  John  as  its  author   (i.  1,  '^^^■'^'•* 

•  .  TlOS: 

4,9;  xxii.  8);  and  claims  to  have  been  written  in  the  Island  its  auUior: 
of  Patmos,  whither  John  had  been  sent  on  account  of  his  tes- 
timony for  Jesus  (i.  9,  11,  19 ;  x.  4  ;  xiv.  13  ;  xix.  9 ;  xxi.  5). 
It  is  addressed  to  "the  seven  churches  of  Asia  "  (i.  4-ll),aud''«  *<^<^r<^»: 
as  he  styles  himself  "a  partaker  with  them  in  the  tribulation, 
and  kingdom,  and  patience  in  Jesus  "  (i.  9),  he  must  already 
have  lived   among  them  before  the  book  was  written.      These 

'  Canon    Farrar     (Early   Dai/x  of  (o  the  proof  of  the  statoment  made 

Christianity),  presents  the  full  force  on  this  point  we  refer  the  reader  to 

of  the  evidenees  for  the  priority  of  the  Introduction  to  I.  John  in  the 

Jude,  while  Prof.  T.uinhy    in  the  Bible    Coniniontary,    and    to    the 

Introductions    to    II.    Peter    and  many  works  on    this   epistle.     To 

Jude    in    the    Bible   Conunentary,  .sot  them  forth  fully  would  require 

<loes   the    same    in    favor   of    the  more  space  than  we  can   hen'  ap- 

priority  of  II.  Pet«>r.  pmjiriate. 

'-'  For  the  specification    nec-essary 


124  c ;  K  N  U 1 N  t:  N  KSS  ( >  b'  T  H  K 

its  earliest  c'liiu'ches  had  been  e.stablishetl  by  Paul,  and  tliough  several  of 
^°^\  *"      his  epistles  (Ephesians,  Colossians,  I.  Timothy  and  II.  Timo- 
thy) had  been  sent  into  their  midst,  the  last  just  previous  to 
his  death,  in  all  these  there  is  no  allusion  to  John,  from  which 
it  is  inferred  that  his  residence  there  did  not  begin  until  after 
or  about  the  time  of  Paul's  death.     As  Paul  was  beheaded  in 
the  year  68,  this  is  about  the  earliest  date  which  can  be  as- 
signed to  John's  residence  in  Asia,  and  to  the  composition  of 
this  book.     This  is  the  date  actually  assigned  to  the  book  by 
arguments  recent  skeptical  writers  in  general,  and  also  by  many  others.' 
dlte;  Their  opinion  is  supported  by  many  ingenious  arguments,  of 

which  the  following  are  the  most  forcible :  First,  that  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  city  and  temple  are  implied  in  what  is 
said  of  them  in  xi.  1,  2.  Second,  that  there  is  such  a  differ- 
ence in  style  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the  other  writings 
of  John,  as  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that 
he  wrote  the  former  when  he  was  but  little  acquainted  with 
the- Greek  language,  having  just  removed  from  Judea,  and  the 
latter  after  a  long  residence  among  the  Greek-speaking  inhab- 
itants of  Ephesus  and  its  vicinity.  Third,  the  interpretation 
of  the  book  adopted  by  those  writers,  which  makes  the  Em- 
peror Nero  its  Anti-christ,  requires  this  date.^  All  who  con- 
tend for  this  date,  set  aside  the  positive  statement  of  Trenaius, 
which  we  cited  in  a  former  chapter  (page  89),  as  a  mistake 
based  on  misinformation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  great  mass 
arguments  ^^f  ^}^p  older  (U'itics,  and  some  of  the  most  recent,  contend  for 

for  a  later  i  i       i        i 

date;  the  correctness  ot  the  statement  oi   Irenieus,  that  the  book  was 

written  near  the  close  of  the  reign   of  Domitian,  who  died  in 
06.     They  interpretthe  words  in  xi.  1,  2  concerning  Jerusalem 

'"  We  might  fix  the  date  of  the  "Tlic      Apocalypse     was     written 

Vision  in  the  summer  or  autninn  slioitly  after   the   death    of   Nero, 

of  A.  D.  f).S.     This  is,  indeed,  the  all  and  shortly  hefore  tlie  destruction 

hut  certain  date  of  the  l)ook."  Kar-  of  Jerusalem."     Fisher,  Sup.  Origin 

rar,  Earl;/  I)ni/H  of  Chrixlianily,  413.  of  VhriMi<imty,  125.     Nero  died  in 

"  The  Apocalypse  is  after  the  close  .Tune,  (18,   and    .Jerusalem    fell    in 

of  St.  Paul's  work.     .     .     .     On  the  Augiisr,  70. 

other  hand,  it  is  lu'fore  the  (lestruc-       ■'These    reasons    are    set     forth 

tion  of  .Jerusalem."     Westcott,  //'-  elahorately  in  l^arrar's  Eurbj  Days 

Irodurtioii  to  Gospel  of  John,  p.  Ixx'xvi.  of  C'hriMinvitii,  c  .xxv. 


NKU    TKSTAMEXT  HOOKS.  125 

and  the  temple  in  a  .symbol icul  sense;  they  contend  that  the 
differenees  in  style  between  the  two  books  are  less  than  is  as- 
serted, and  that  they  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  difference  in 
subject  matter ;  and  they  give  to  the  book  a  totally  different 
interpretation.'  Strong  internal  evidence  of  the  latter  opinion  ^''^ '°"^''' 
IS  round  in  tlie  condition  ot  some  oi  the  churchos  addressed,  internal  ev- 
The  church  at  Ejihosus  had  endured  "toil  and  patience "  ^*^^"*^^' 
worthy  oi"  praise,  and  had  encountered  and  exposed  some  ^vho 
falsely  claimed  to  be  Apostles  ;  but  she  had  left  her  first  love 
and  was  exhorted  to  repent  and  do  her  first  works  (ii.  2-5). 
The  church  at  Pergamos  had  passed  through  a  severe  persecu- 
tion in  which  at  least  one  martyr  had  been  slain  (ii.  13),  while 
in  at  least  three  of  these  churches  corrupt  parties  called  Xico- 
laitans,  followers  of  Balaam,  and  imitators  of  Jezebel,  had 
become  common  pests  (ii.  6,  14,  15,20).  In  none  of  Paul's 
Epistles  sent  to  these  comimmities  are  any  of  these  parties  or 
incidents  alluded  to,  although  his  last  (II.  Tim.)  was  written 
the  year  of  his  death,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
he  would  have  rebuked  them  had  they  existed.  So  great 
changes  could  not  well  have  taken  place  until  quite  a  number  of 
years  after  his  death,  and  if  they  did  not  the  earlier  date  must 
be  rejected.  ,  But  the  genuineness  of  the  book  is  not  affected 
by  the  decision  of  this  question  ;  for  this  is  conceded  by  both 
parties  to  the  controversy. 

We  have  now  considered  the  internal  evidence  of  the  gen-^'^^nerai 

piii-vTm  II  1  pii-    conclusion. 

uineness  of  all  the  JNew  1  estament  hooks,  and  we  find  that  it 
unites  with  the  external  evidence  in  suj)porting  the  claim  that 
they  were  written  by  Aj)ostles  and  "  ajxtstolie  men."  Objec- 
tions to  this  line  of  evidence  will  be  stated  and  discussed  in 
the  following  Chapter. 

'  A  very  ahle  ami  t'labonite  pn-  Iah',  in  his  Intro'liiction  tti  Reve- 
Rcntation  of  this  sirle  of  the  (jues-  lation  in  the  I'.ilile  Coniment- 
tion    i';   fiiniishcd    hv  .Vrclideacon    arv. 


CHAPTER  V. 


POSITIONS  TAKEN  BY  UNBELIEVERS. 


The 

Tubingen 
school : 


their  rehi- 
tive  ability 


their 

scheme  of 
dates  anrl 
iiuthorKhip 


Unbelievers  as  a  class  deny  the  genuineness  of  all  but  a 
few  of  the  New  Testament  books,  and  assign  to  them  dates 
too  late  for  apostolic  authorship.  The  most  learned  and 
ingenious  of  the  class  are  the  German  writers  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  so  called  from  the  University  of  Tiibingen,  in  which 
the  founder  of  the  school,  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur/  and 
several  of  its  later  writers  were  Professors.  In  this  chapter  we 
shall  confine  our  remarks  in  the  main  to  the  positions  and  ar- 
guments of  these  writers,  because,  in  so  doing  we  shall  be  able 
to  thoroughly  test  the  conclusions  reached  in  our  former  chap- 
ters on  this  subject,  and  because  a  refutation  ef  their  argu- 
ments will  involve  a  fortiori  the  refutation  of  all  that  have 
been  advanced  on  the  negative  side  of  the  question. 

Their  scheme  of  dates  and  authorship  according  to  Schweg- 
ler,  one  of  the  most  advanced  thinkers  of  the  .school,  is  as  fol- 
lows : ' 


'  Baur"s  prinripal  works  are  a 
Life  of  the  Apostle  Paul  aiul  a  His- 
tory of  C'liristianity  in  the  first 
Three  Centuries.  In  these  all  the 
essential  features  of  his  theory  are 
set  forth.  He  attempts  to  recon- 
struct the  early  history  of  the 
church  with  all  that  is  mirarulous 
and  all  that  tends  to  the  proof  of 
miracles,  carefully  eliminated.  He 
is  regarded  as  the  preat<'st  of  mod- 
ern CTerman  rationalists.  He  died 
in  l.S(>0. 


-This  scheme  is  condensed  from 
Westcott  {('nrioi)  af  Xrir  Tt.fldDH')!!, 
(), ».  2).  He  .says,  at  the  conclusion 
of  his  note,  "Sch\ve}.'ler's  theory 
has  heen  variou.sly  modified  l>y 
later  writers  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  lint  it  still  remains  the 
most  complete  embodiment  of  the 
spirit  of  the  school  in  which  rela- 
tion alone  we  have  to  deal  with 
it."  The  last  remark  is  (Mnially  ap- 
plicable to  the  use  which  we  mnk<v 
ni  it  in  this  volume. 


NEW  t]f:stamknt  books.  127 

1.  They  recognize  as  genuine,  the  Apocalypse,  and  four  of 
Paul's  Epistles,  viz.  :  Romans,  I.  and  II.  Corinthians,  and 
Galatians. 

2.  They  assign  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  Acts  of  Apostles,  and 
Hebrews,  to  about  the  year  100,  and  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
siaus  to  a  little  later  date. 

3.  All  the  other  books  they  place  between  115  and  150  A. 
D.,  except  II.  Peter,  which  they  date  about  the  year  200. 

From  this  it  appears  that  in  reference  to  the  live  books  Jn'^'^^'s^^e 
the  lirst  class  there  is  no  dispute  ;  that  in  reference  to  the  five 
in  the  second  class  the  question  of  date  is  narrowed  down  to  a 
period  of  about  fc^rty  years,  the  time  between  the  year  100 
and  the  received  dates ;  and  that  in  reference  to  the  rest  no 
date  later  than  a.  d.  150  is  assigned  to  any  except  II.  Peter. 
The  evidences  then,  by  which  we  have  traced  this  last  epistle 
back  from  the  year  200,  and  the  others  back  from  the  dates 
just  mentioned  to  the  period  in  which  their  reputed  authors 
were  living,  are  all  that  are  called  in  question.  We  will  now 
proceed  to  examine  in  detail  the  principal  objections  urged 
against  these  evidences. 

The  evidence  of  catalogues  is  unassailed,  except  that  drawn  Asioth.> 
from  the  Canon  of  Muratori,'  the  early  date  of  which  is  called  from  .ma- 
in question.     That  it  was  written  as  early  as  the  year  170,  is'^s"'"* 
evinced    by   the   following  remark    in   the    document    itself: 
"  Hermas  wrote  The  Shepherd  very  recently  in  our  own  time 
in  the  city  of  Rome,  while  his  brother  Pius  was  occupying  the 
bishop's  chair  in  the  church  at   Rome."     As  Pius  held  office 
from  142  to  157,  the  author  could  scarcely  speak  of  that  period 
as  being  very  re(!eut,  and  "  in  our  own  time,"  if  he  were  writ- 
ing much  later  than  the  year  170.     But  the  author  of  Super- 
natural   Religion,  the  best   rc^prescntative    in    England  of  the 
Tubingen  school  of  rationalists,   claims   that   this  expression 
may  have  been  used  by  a  writer  living  in  "  an  advanced  period 
of  the  tliinl  century,"- — with  how  much    reason  we    leave  the 

'  .Si'i-  Cliapter  I.,  p.  74.  to  date  tins  aiifniynions  frajcnieiit  rt*- 

'"It  is  un.safe  upon  the  mere  in-  fj«'irdinp   which    wc   know  notliinp. 

tiTjiretationof  a  i)hrase  which  would  earlier  than   the  very  end  of  the 

1)0  api)Hcable  even  a  century  later,  second   or  beginning  of  the   third 


128  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

reader  to  judge.  In  view,  however,  of  the  admission  that  all 
of  the  books  exeept  II.  Peter  eaine  into  existence  before  the 
year  150,  and  of  the  fact  that  this  Epistle  is  not  found  in  the 
Canon  in  question,  the  objector  has  nothing  to  gain  on  the  main 
question  by  establishing,  were  it  possible,  a  later  date  for  this 
document.  We  may  therefore  regard  the  evidence  which  we 
have  presented  from  cutalognes  as  being  virtually  unassailed. 
As  to  that  Xhe  same  may  be  said   of  the  evidence   from  translations 

sions.  presented  in  Chapter  II.;  for  Tllthough  a  later  date  than 
that  which  we  have  assigned  to  the  four  versions  from  which 
this  evidence  is  drawn  has  been  contended  for,  yet  the  admis- 
sion by  the  objectors  that  all  the  books  contiiined  in  the  Pcshito 
Syriac  and  the  Old  Latin  were  in  existence  before  the  date 
assigned  to  these  (a.  d.  150),  and  that  all  the  other  books  were 
in  existence  at  the  date  which  we  have  assigned  to  the  Coptic 
versions  (a.  d.  200),  renders  nugatory,  as  respects  this  ques- 
tion, the  attempt  to  bring  these  versions  down  to  later  dates. 
The  only  parts  of  the  preceding  evidence  which  are  seriously 
Where  the  eoutcstcd,  are  thosc  in   Chapters  III.   and  IV.,  the  evidence 

contest  be-     ^  '      ^  ,     ^  _  ' 

gins.  from  quotations,  and  the  internal  evidence.     In  regard  to  the 

former,  the  contest  begins  with  the  quotations  cited  from  Justin 

Martyr,  all  the  evidence  which  we  derived  from  Ireufcus  being 

admitted,  exee])t   that   referring  to    II.  Peter,  which  we  have 

defended   in  Chapter  III.     Moreover,  the  concession  already 

mentioned,  that  all  the  books  except  this  short  Ej)istle  were 

written  before  Ireujeus  wrote,  would    render  superfluous  any 

contest  over  his  quotations. 

Theissuoas        'fi^(>  dispute   concerning   the   evidence   from    Justin   turns 

to  Justin's       ,  .    „  ,         , 

quotations;  ell lefly  upou  what  he  says  about  the  Gospels.     It  is  denied,  of 

course,  that    lie  (piotcd   II,    l\'ter,  and   on  this  point  we  have 

j)rescnt('<l    mii'   own    reasonings    in    Chapter  III.      As  to    the 

other  books  which  we   have    rej)resented   him  as  (juoting,  the 

genuineness  of  First  Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Revelation,  is 

admitte<l,  while  Colossians  and   Hebrews  are  assigned  to  the 

year   100  or  a   little   later,  farther  back  than    tlie   memory  of 

Justin  reached.      But  the  Gospels  are  the  books  on  which  the 

centtiry,  and  it  is  still  more  probable    vaiicofl  period  of  the  third  century." 
tiiat   it  was  lint  written  until  an  ad-    Snin riinlnrnl  lidif/lnii.  ii.  '_'44. 


NKW  TKSTAMKN'I'   HOOKS.  VIU 

j)roof  of  the  divine  orii;in  »if'  Christianity  chiefly  depends,  and 
the  admission  that  Justin  made  use  of  these  wouhl  throw  their 
origin  baelc  so  fir  as  to  l)n-ak  up  entirely  the  sehenie  of  dates 
adopted  \>y  the  sehool  whose  views  we  are  representing  :  con- 
sequently they  have  contested  very  hotly  the  evidence  on  this 
point. 

The  contest   concerns   wholly   the   question,   whether    the*^^"^" 
«r  •  1  •   1      T        •  <>       1   '  11  •!  Memoirs. 

Memoirs  which  Justin  so  ireely  quotes  and  describes,  are  our 
four  Gospels,  or  some  previously  existing  documents.  The  in- 
lidel  position  is,  that  they  were  not  our  Gospels,  but  a])ocrv- 
phal  documents  which  alone  were  used  up  to  Justin's  time,  and 
that  our  Gospels  were  written  afterward  and  substituted  for 
these  older  narratives.  The  principal  arguments  in  favor  oi 
this  position,  and  the  answers  to  them,  we  shall  now  state. 

I.  Justin  does  not  name  the  author  or  authors  of  his  Mem- Argumoiu 
oirs.     This  is  held  as  proof  that  he  did  not  know  the  names,  o,)^issiou 
and  that  therefore  the  Memoirs  were  not  our  Gospels.     The"^"*™^^- 
argument  is  supposed  to  be  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  in  a 
large  majority  of  his  quotations  fi'onvthe  ©Id  Testament  he 
does  name  the  books  or  authors  quoted  ;  and  by  the  fact  that 
in  citing  the  Apocalypse  he  names  John  as  its  author.     It  is 
especially  argued  from  this  last  circumstance,  that  he  could  not 
have   known  a   Gospel    by  John,  or   he  would    likewise   have 
mentioned  his  name  in  connection  with  it.' 

'  "That  Justin  does  not  mention  the  .inutility  of  repeating  the  refer- 

the    name   of    the    author    of    the  ence.     .     .     .    The  fact  is  that  the 

Memoirs  would  in  any  case  render  only  writing  of  the  New  Testament 

any  arginiient  as  to  their  identity  to  which  Justin  refei-s  by  nauie  is. 

with  our  canonical  gospels  incom-  as  we  ha\c  already  mentioned,  tlu- 

plete ;    but   the    total    o,niis.sion    to  Apocalypse,  which  he  attributes  to 

do  80  is  the  more  remarkable  from  'a   certain    man    whose    name  was 

tlie  circumstance  that  the  names  of  John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ. 

Old    Testament    writers  constantly  who    prophesied    by    a    revelation 

occur    in    his    writings.      Semisch  made  to  him,'   etc.     The  manner  in 

counts  197  quotations  from  the  01<1  which  John  is  here  mentioned,  after 

Testament,  in  which  Justin  refers  the  Mwmoirs  had  been  so  constantly 

to  the  author  by  name,  or  to  the  imlefmitely  referred  to  clearly  shows 

book,  and   only    117   in   which   he  that  Ju.stin  did  not  pos.se.ss  any  gfis- 

oniits  to  do  so.  and  flie  latter  num-  pel  also  attributed  to  John.     That 

ber  might  be  reduced  by  considering  he   does    name   John.   iiowev«'r.  as 

the  nature  of  tlif  passages  cited,  and  the  aiuhnr  >>t   the   Ajxicalypse  ;ind 


130  GENUINENESS  OK  THE 

Answer:  Tluit  this  argument  is  without  force  is  seen  from  the  fol- 

the  names  .  .  ,  .  -r-,.  .  •  •  i        i        i         i 

immater-     lowiug   considerations,      lirst,   in    arguing   with   the   heathen 
^*^'  Emperor  and  the  unbelieving  Jew,  after  stating  that  the  facts 

he  gives  were  attested  by  writings  of  Apostles  and  their  follow- 
ers, nothing  would  have  been  gained  by  giving  the  writers' 
names.     It  was  their  relation  to  the  facts  recorded  that  gave 
them  credence,  and  not  their  names.     Second,  it  was  the  cus- 
anonymous  tom  of  early  Christian  writers,  even  of  those  who,  according  to 
customary,  the  admission  of  modern  ske})tics,  certainly  used  our  Gospels, 
to  quote  them  anonymously,  and  it  would  have  been  strange 
if  Justin  had  done  otherwise.^     Even  since  the  introduction  of 
printed  books,  with  chapters  and  verses,  it  is  quite  customary 
to  cite  the  Scriptures  in  the  same  way;  for  the  only  value  of 
special  references  is  that  it  enables  the  reader  to  more  readily 
find  the  })assages  quoted.     Third,  Justin's  quotations  from  the 
except  in     Old  Testament  were  almost  exclusively  the  predictions  that 
fjom  had  been  fulfilled  in   Christ,  and  in  arguing  on  this  subject 

prophecy,  -^yitli  the  Jcw  Tryplio,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  be  explicit. 
It  is  precisely  in  this  way  that  he  was  led  to  name  John  as  the 
author  of  the  Apocaly})sc,  for  he  was  quoting  from  him  a  pre- 
diction concerning  the  millennium."  Justin's  failure,  then,  to 
give  the  names  of  his  authors,  has  no  bearing  on  the  question 
at  issue. 
ArKument  2.  Ou   Comparing  Justin's  quotations  from    tiie  Memoirs 

from  verbal       .,,  •^•  -iz-i  ^        •       •       ^  t 

tiifferenccs.  With   the  Corresponding  passages, in  the  Gospels,  it   is  found 

.so  frequently  refers  to  Old  Testa-  ment  'that  Justin  "  i.s  not  less  but 
ment  writers  by  name,  yet  never  more  explicit  than  later  Apologists 
identifies  the  author  of  the  Memoirs  as  to  the  writings  from  whicli  he  de- 
ls quite  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  rivos  his  accounts  of  the  Lord's  life 
tliat  they  were  the  canonical  go.s-  and  teaching."  f'awmof  Xew  Trsta- 
l)els."     Supernatural  Ri'Iifjiou,  i.,  297,  iiient,  1 1(5-119. 

-i^'H.  '  "  Moreover  also  among  us  a  man 

'  Westcott    giver;    the    names    of  named  .Tolin,  one  of  the  apoKtl(>s  of 

twelve  writers  extending  fnjn\  Ta-  <'hrist,  j)rophesied  in  a  revelation 

tian  of  the  second  century  to  Kn-  made  to  him,  that  those  who  have 

sebius  of  the  fourth,  who  in  their  believed  on  our  Christ  shall  spend  a 

works  addressed  to  unbelievers  al-  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem."  Din- 

mo.st  uniformly  quote   the  gospels  Aw/r^-,  r.  81.     Th^s  is  of  course  only 

anonymously,  and  he  closes  his  re-  Justin's  interpretation  of  Rev.  xx. 

marks  on  the  subject  with  the  state-  1-7. 


NEW  TESTA MHNT  HiJOKS.  131 

that  there  arc  many  verbal  differences,  and  from  this  it  is 
argued  that  the  Memoirs  and  the  Gospels  can  not  have  been 
the  same  books.* 

These  differences  consist    partly   in   slitrlit   alterations  aud'^"^^®'"- 
trdnsiX)sitions  of  words,  and  partly,  as   in   the  instances  cited  differences 
l)olo\v   in   the  last   note,  in  the  coinminulin<j  of  passaues  from  "^l 511°"°^ 

'  ...  O'^  Testa- 

(Hfferent  writers.  Whether  they  furnish  any  evidence  of  having  ment 
been  taken  from  some  other  source  than  our  Gospels,  depends  °  ^' 
upon  Justin's  habit  in  making  quotations — whether  or  not  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  quoting  with  verbal  accuracy,  ^^'e  are  at 
no  loss  to  a.scertain  his  habit  in  this  respect,  for  it  is  exhibited 
in  his  numerous  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  He 
quotes  Old  Testament  writers  Avith  similar  verbal  variations, 
and  he  commingles  passages  from  different  authors  as  if  he 
were  (juotiug  but  one."  This  refutes  the  argument.  His  evi- 
dent  purpose  in  making  these  variations,  when  he  does  it  in- 

'  The  most  striking  of  these  dif-  illustrative  of  this  habit,  of  which 

ferences  are  the  following :  In  Jus-  the  following  is  the  most  striking, 

tin's  quotation  of  the  wonls  spoken  and  it  is  suflBcient  for  our  purpose, 

to  Mary  I)y  the  angel  (Luke  i.  'M)  "  What  then  the  people  of  the  Jews 

alter  the  words  "shall  call  his  name  will    say  and   do   when    they    see 

Jesns,"  he  appends  tlu'  additional  Christ's  advent  in  glory,  has  been 

w(jrds  used  hy  the  angel  in  speak-  thus  told  in  i)ropheoy  by  Zechari- 

ing  to  Joseph  (Matt.  i.  21),  "for  he  ah:     'I  will  charge  the  four  winds 

shall   save  his  people    from    their  to  gather  my  children   who  have 

sins."     Apolngif,   i.   33.     In  his  ac-  been  scattered.     I  will  charge  the 

count  of  the  census  ordered  at  the  north  \\-ind  to  bring  and  the  south 

time  of  Joseph's  removal  to  Bethle-  wind  not  to  hinder,  (Zcch.  ii.  (5;  Isa. 

lem,    he    represents  the   census  as  xxxxiii.  (li.     '  And  then  shall  there 

being  taken  in  Judoa,  whereas  Luke  l)e  in  Jerusalem  a  great  lamentation, 

lias   it,    "all   the   world";   and   he  not  a  lamentati(m   of    ukmUIis  and 

speaks  of  Quirinius,  as  Procurator  lips,    but  a    lamentation  of   heart' 

(fmr/»oTo-;)  of  Judea,  whereas  he  was  (Zech.  xxii.  11), '  and  they  shall  not 

according  to  Luke  Governor  (vye/iwi')  rend    their    garments,    but     their 

of  Syria.     .1/W.  i.,  34;  Dial,  c,  78.  minds' (Joel   ii.    13).     'They  .«5hall 

In   his  account  of  the   voice  that  lament  tribe  to  tribe '  (Zech.  xii.  12- 

came  from  heaven  at  the  baptism  14);  'and  then  shall  tliey  look  on 

of  Jesus,  he  adds  to  the  words  in  him    whom    they  pierced  (xii.    10) 

the  Gospels  the  words,  "Thou  art  anfl    say;      Why,    0    Lord,    did'st 

my  Son.  this  day  have  I  begotten  thou  make  us  to  err  from  thy  way  ? ' 

thee."     Dial.  c.,8S.  (Isa.  xliii.  17).  'The glory  which  our 

'Westcott  (Canon  of  N.  T.  120-  fathers  blessed  is  turned  to  our  re- 

123)  quotes  a  number  of   passages  proach' (Isa.  xliv.  11,  ^/.  TVrjtioji)." 


l'V2  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

^'^^^'*''*^  ^'^'teiitiouallv,    is    to    briuy;  out    Avhat    he    sui)no.sc'(l    to   bo   the 

counted  .  .     , . 

for;  meaning,  or  to  indicate  some  application  of  the  text  by  a  modi- 

fication of  its  words.'  But  much  the  greater  number  of  hi.s 
vai'ia'ions  is  unquestimiabK'  due  to  (juoting  from  memorv. 
This  appears  from  the  fact  that  in  a  large  majority  of  the  in- 
.  stances  in  ^vhich  the  same  passage  is  quoted  twice  or  threes 
times  its  jjhraseology  is  more  or  less  varied  every  time.'  In 
the  time  of  manuscript  books  it  was  far  more  inconvenient  to 
open  to  a  passage  and  copy  it  verbatim,  than  it  is  now  Avith 
our  printed  books  divided  into  chapters  and  verses,  yet  the 
number  of  free  quotations  to  be  found  in  })rint  is  even  now 
they  very  large.     We  conclude,  then,  that  Justin's  verbal  variations 

uroor'    "  from  our  Gospels  furnish  no  cvideni^e  that   he  did   not  quote 

them. 
Argument  3.  X  groiuid  of  argument  at  first  sight  more  serious  than  the 

gngesnot  in  preceding,  is  the  fact  that  Justin  quotes  utterances  of  Jesus  and 
theGospeis.  of  othci's  coiiiiccted  with  him,  that  are  not  ibund  in  our  Gospels 
in  any  form;  from  A\lnch  it  is  inferred  that  his  Memoirs  Avere 
not  our  Gospels.^     We   give  the  three   most  conspicuous  ex- 
amples.    He  represents  Jesus  as  predicting,  in  his  warnings  to 

'  The  following   are    remarkable  holy  tabernacle,  and  paid  to  the  peo- 

instances    illustrative    of    both     of  pie :     Should  you  look  on  this  im- 

these  purposes.     lie  quotes  a  well-  ajre  and  believe  in  it,  you  shall  be 

known  passage  from  Ezekiel  (iii.  17-  saved.     And  he  has  recorded  that 

19)  in  this  form:     "I  have  placed  when   this  was  done   the  8eri>f'nts 

tliee  as  a  watcnman  to  the  house  of  died,  and   so    the    people    cscajied 

.Tndah.     Should  the  sinner  sin,  aiid  death."      Apol.  i.  HO,  comp.  'Sumh. 

thou  not  testify  to  him,  he  indeed  xxi.  G-9.     By  parity   of   reasoning 

shall   perish  for  his  sin,  but   from  the  skeptic  should  say  of  these  quo- 

thee  I  will  require  his  blood;  but  if  tations   that    they    eortandy    must 

thou   testify  to  him  thou  shalt  l)e  have  been  taken  from  some  spuri- 

blameless."     Dial.   c.   Ixxxii.     "  In  ous  Ezekiel  and  Numbers,  and  not 

the  writingH  of  Closes  it  is  recorded  from    the  books   kuown   to   us   by 

that  at  the  point  of  time  when  the  these  titles. 

Israelites  came  out  of  Egypt,  and  -'  Wostcott  has  collected  in  a  brief 
were  in  the  wilderness,  venomous  table  all  the  quotations  which  Jus- 
beasts  encountered  tliem,  vipers  tin  makes  more  than  once,  and  it 
and  asps  and  serpents  of  all  kinds,  shows  that  while  there  arc  twenty- 
which  killed  the  people;  and  that  three  instances  of  agreement,  there 
by  inspiration  and  impulse  of  God  are  thirty-five  instances  of  differ- 
Mo.ses  took  bra.ss  and  made  an  im-  ence.  f'nvov  of  N.  T.  173,  174. 
age  of  a  cross,  and  .«»et  tiiis  on  the  ^Snji.  liil.  ii. 'J.S(),.'?H3,  412-10, /'^  <ii. 


XE\V  TESTATuSXT  BOOZ".  133 

the  disciples  (Matt.  xxiv.  24),  the  coming  of  "  lalsc  apostles," 
as  well  as  false  Christs  and  false  prophets ;  in  his  account  of 
the  mockings  around  the  cross,  he  quotes  among  the  other 
taunts  of  the  people,  "  Let  him  come  down  and  walk,"  the 
word  Malk  not  occurring  in  our  Gospels ;  and  he  cites  from 
Jesus  the  saying,  "  In  whatsoever  I  find  you,  in  this  will  I  also 
judge  you." 

The  last  of  these  is  not  found  in  our  Gospels  at  all,  and-^"^^^^*"- 
Justin  must  have  derived  it  froni  some  other  written  source,  oriam; 
from  tradition,  lie  does  not  say  that  he  found  it  in  his  Memoirs, 
and  consequently  it  can  not  be  used  as  proof  that  the  Memoirs 
contained  it.  Moreover,  it  is  the  only  entire  sentence 
which  he  cjiiotes  I'rom  Jesus  that  is  not  in  the  Gospels,  and  it 
is  not  at  all  n-markahlc  that,  living  as  he  did,  when  sayings  of 
Jesus  orally  transmitted  may  still  have  been  in  circulation  in 
large  numbers,  he  quotes  one  of  them.  Paul  makes  a  quota- 
tion of  this  kind  derived  from  a  similar  source  (Acts  xx.  35). 

The  other  two  variations  from  the  gosi)el  text  are  accounted"'**"^''® 

®      I  other  two 

for  by  Justin's  habit  of  expanding  the  text  while  quoting  it. 
As  false  apostles  had  appeared  (II.  Cor.  xi.  1.');  Rev.  ii.  2),  it 
was  but  a  slight  departure  iVom  tlie  letter  of  tlie  prediction 
and  none  from  the  meaning,  to  ri'prcsent  them  as  included 
among  the  false  teachci-s  against  whom  the  warning  was  ut- 
tered. And  ill  (pioting  the  words  of  those  \\li<»  mocked  Jesus 
on  the  cross,  he  was  but  expressing  more  fully  their  meaning 
when,  to  their  saying,  "  Let  him  come  down,"  he  added  the 
words,  ''and  walk."  They  did  not  mean  that  he  should  come 
down  to  sit,  or  to  lie  down,  but  to  walk  alunit  and  show- 
that  he  had  recovered  from  the  maiming  of  the  crucifixion. 
Surely  these  additions  to  the  text  can  not  be  regarded  by  a 
serious  mind  as  ])roof  that  the  Memoirs  were  not  our  Gospels. 

4.  In   the  fourth  place,  it   is  alleged  that  Justin   mentions  ^'^"'"'^»* 

r  1      •         1    i>  I  •      Ar  •  1         '  ■  1  1/1  from  fuels 

facts  derive<l  from  Ins  Memoirs  that  are  not  l(»uiul   in  the  Gos- not  m  our 
pels  ami  that  are  contradictory  to  iluiu.'     Three  .specifications ^°®''*''*" 
are  suflicient  to  test   this  allegation  as  a  source  of  argument. 

'  "  Facts  in  the  lifi-  of  Jt'sus  and  only  are  not  in  our  Ciospcls,  but 
circumstaniHs  of  ChriHtian  history  are  in  contradiction  with  them." 
derived  from  the  saiiii-  souive,  not    lb.  28(1. 


134  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

as  to  the  First,  it  i.s  said  that  Justin,  contrary  to  tlie  Gospels,  derives 
of  JesusT  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  from  David  through  Mary.'  This  Jus- 
tin does,  but  it  is  not  contradictory  to  the  Gospels.  The 
genealogy  given  by  Lidce  has  been  understood  by  the  majority 
of  scholars  from  the  earliest  times  as  doing  the  same,  and  it  is 
but  fair  to  suppose  that  Justin  so  understood  it.  Moreover, 
the  words  of  the  angel  quoted  by  Luke  as  addressed  to  Mary 
imply  the  same  thing.  Speaking  to  her  of  her  own  son  who 
was  to  be  born  without  an  earthly  father,  he  says  to  her:  "  The 
Lord  God  shall  give  to  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David." 
The  use  of  the  word  father  here  would  have  been  unintelligible 
to  her  had  she  not  been  a  descendant  of  David.  Second,  Jus- 
tin states  that  when  Jesus  descended  to  the  water  to  be  bap- 
astofireon^j2,g(]   a  ^^  f^^e  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan,"  and  that  amont?  the 

the  Jordan ;  '  ^ 

the  voice     words  adch'cssed  to  him  from  heaven  were  these:  "Thou  art 

heaven       my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.""     But  these  words 

actually  existed  in  some  early  MSS.  of  Luke,  and  they  are  still 

found  in  one  Greek  MS.,  and  in  the  Old  Latin  version,^     He 

may  therefore  have  quoted  them  from  his  co))y  of  Luke.     As 

for  the  fire  on  the  river,  he  does  not  claim  to  have  learned 

this  from  the  Memoirs,  but  he  uses  language  that  implies  the 

reverse.     He  says :  "  When  Jesus  came  to  the  Jordan  where 

John  was  baptizing,  when  He  descended  to  the  water  both  a 

fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan,  and  the  apostles  of  our  Christ 

himself  recorded  that  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  dove  lighted  upon 

him."^     This  careful  citation  of  the  apostles  for  the  latter  fact 

alone  implies  that  for  the  former  he  had  not  their  authority. 

The  incident  was  legendary,  and  it  was  quite  widely  circulated 

in  the  second   century.'^     Third,  in  referring  to  the  arrest  of 

and  the  ab- j(.gy^  bv  the  Jews,  Justin   savs,  ''There  was  not  even   a  single 
sence  of  *  '  •     '  ^ 

help  for  Je- man  to  run  to  his  helj)  as  n  guiltless  person;"  and  this  is  held 

to  be  a  contradiction  of  what  is  said  in  the  Gosj)els  about  the 

attempt  of  Peter  to  defend  his  Lord.**     But  Justin  evidently 

refers  to  help  from  without,  and   not  to  the  fruitless  attempt  of 

'  Jh.  300-302.  ♦  Dwlor/ue,  c.  8H. 

» lb.  310-319.  *  Wcstcntt  on  the  Canon,  159,  n.  1. 

»Westcott  on  the  Can.,  158  and       «.Sh/;.  Rel.  II.  329. 
n.  4. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  135 

Peter.  The  expression,  "  run  to  his  help,"  shows  that  he  refers 
to  persoLS  at  a  distance,  and  not  lo  those  who  were  standing  by 
his  side. 

5.  It  is  alleged  in  confirmation  of  the  preceding  arguments,  ^^™^^"^^ 
that  Justin's  quotations  agree  in  their  variations  from  the  Gos-iity  of  quo- 
pels  with  certain  apocryphal  gospels,  and  with  quotations  made  J^j'j'jJI^^g^ 
by  persons  who  are  known  to  have  used  them.^     This  is  true  from  apoc- 
iu  a  few  instances,  but  it  proves  nothing  more  than  that  Justin  [l^^^^.^ 
and  the  authors  of  these  works  had  some  common  source  of  in- 
formation whence  these  variations  were  derived.      It  can  not 
be  proved  that  any  of  the  apociyphal  gospels  were  credited  to 
"followers  of  the  apostles,"  as  were  a  ])ortion  of  the  Memoirs 
cited  by  Justin. 

In  answer  to  the  verv  decisive  fact  that  Justin  speaks  of^"^*^^''^^ 

«  ■'^      _  Gospels: 

his  Memoirs  as  being  "  called  Gospels,"  showing  that  this  was  futile 
tlu'  name  by  which  they  were  more  commonly  known,  and  ^^1*^^^*.^^ 
furnishing  strong  evidence  that  they  are  those  which  still  bear 
the  same  title,^  it  is  answered,  that  this  expression  is  probably 
an  interpolation  in  Justin's  works.'  But  no  evidence  of  in- 
tcr])olation  has  been  found,  and  therefore  the  answer  amounts 
to  nothing. 

A  verv  com])lcte  r.nd  altogether  sufficient  refutation  of  the -^  sufficient 

1  i"t-iat  •  1  I  /^  ^       '    refutation 

theory  that  .Justin  s  Memoirs  were  other  than  our  bospcls,  is  of  the  skep- 
found  in  the  fact  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  in  the  days  of "'^''^  **'^"- 
Irenanis  and  of  the  author  of  the  Muratorian  Canon,  only 
about  twenty  years  after  Justin's  works  appeared,  our  Gospels 
were  in  universal  use  as  apostolic  documents.  This  fact,  in 
order  to  be  reconciled  with  the  theory,  requires  the  supposi- 
tion that  Justin's  Memoirs  were  the  recognized  apostolic  Gos- 
pels up  to  the  year  150,  and  that  ere  the  year  170  four  other 
Gospels  materially  different  and  Ijcaring  the  iianies  of  different 
authors,  come  to  be  substituted  for  them  without  a  word  of 
remonstrance   or   comment    by   any   writer  of  the   day.     Mr. 

*  Jb.  303-332.  in  the  Memoirs  composed  l)y  thcni, 

'See  chap.  TIT.  p   -M.  which  an- ealled  (iospel.s,' etc.    The 

'"A    single    pa.ssHge     has    been  la.«it  exprc.s.si(in,  '  which   arc    called 

pointed  out  in  wliich  tlie  Memuii-s  Gospels,'  as    many    scholars    have 

are  .sai<l  to  have  been  called  (icspels  declared,  is  i)robably  an  interpola- 

in  the  plural:      '  For  the  .\postles  tion."     X"/».  A'c/.  ii.  29'2. 


136  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

"VVestcott  demanded  of  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religicu  an 
explanation  of  this  anomaly,  and  his  reply  was,  that  it  was 
"totally  unnecessary"  for  him  to  account  for  it — a  tacit  con- 
fession of  inability.' 

As  to  the  'p^^^>  evidence  from  the  writings  of  Papias,  who  stands  next 

evidence       .  i-  r  i  •  i  •  i  • 

fromPapi-  m  ouF  Iist  01  authors,  IS  contested  as  vigorously  as  that  from 
"•  Justin.     It  is  contended  that  the  Matthew  and  Mark   men- 

tioned by  him  were  not  our  two  Gospels  under  those  names, 
but  older  documents,  and  of  quite  a  different  character.  In 
regard  to  Matthew  the  following  positions  are  taken : 

The  subject        First,  it  is  affirmed,  that  the  term  by  which  Papias  desig- 
matter  of  ,  ,  .  ,>  a  r       i  i  mi        /  >        i       m 

bis  Mat-      nates  the  subject  matter  ot  Matthews  work,  "  J.  he  Oracles, 

thew.         shows  that  it  was  not  a  history  like  our  present  Matthew,  but 

a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus.^     It  is  admitted  that  the 

'  "  Is  it  then  possible  to  suppose  by  Iren^eus.''  Canon  of  Xcw  Tesia- 
that  within  twenty  or  thirty  years  ment,  165.  "The  last  of  these  gen- 
after  his  [Justin's]  deatJi,  these  eral  objections  to  which  1  need  now 
Gospels  should  have  been  replaced  refer,  is  the  statement  that  the  diffi- 
by  others  similar  and  yet  distinct  ?  culty  with  regard  to  the  gospels 
That  he  should  speak  of  one  set  ot  commences  precisely  where  my  ex- 
books  as  if  they  were  j)eriiianently  aniination  ends,  and  that  I  am 
incorporated  into  the  Christian  ser-  bound  to  explain  how,  if  nn  trace  of 
vices,  and  that  those  who  might  this  existence  is  previously  discov- 
have  been  his  scholars  should  erabtc,  the  four  gospels  are  sudden- 
speak  in  exactly  the  same  terms  of  ly  found  in  circulation  at  the  end  of 
another  collection  as  if  they  had  the  second  century,  and  quoted  as 
had  no  rivals  in  the  orthodox  j)ale?  authoritative  by  such  writers  as 
That  the  substitution  should  b.ave  Iren.eus.  iMy  reply  is  that  it  is 
been  effected  in  such  a  manner  that  totally  unnecessary  for  ine  to  ac- 
no  record  of  it  has  l)een  preserved,  count  fortius."  Sap.  Rrl.  ix. 
while  similar  analogous  reforms  *"  There  can  he  no  doubt  that 
liave  been  duly  chronicled  ?  The  the  direct  meaning  of  the  word 
complication  of  historical  diflicul-  .'oyia  (oracles)  anciently  and  at  the 
ties  in  such  an  hyjiothesis  is  over-  time  of  Papias,  was  simply  words 
whelming ;  and  the  alternative  is  or  oracles  of  a  sacred  character ; 
that  wliich  has  already  been  justi-  and  liowever  much  the  signification 
fied  on  critical  groun<ls,  the  belief  became  afterwards  extended,  that 
that  Justin  in  speaking  f)f  Apostolic  if  was  not  then  at  all  applied  to 
Memoirs  or  Gospels,  meant  the  doings  as  well  as  snyinL's.  There 
Go.spels  which  were  enumerated  in  arc  many  instances  of  this  original 
the  early  anonymous  Canon  of  and  limited  signification  in  ti>e  New 
Muratori,  and  whose  mutual  rela-  Testament;  and  there  is  noli  ngni.stic 
tions   were    eloquently  expounded  precedent  for  straining  the  expres- 


NKW  '1  KSTA.MKNl'  J5<J()KS.  137 

term  rtfors  to  the  sjiyings  of  Jesus  regarded  as  divine  oracles, 
but  the  iulereuce  that  liic  book  thus  designated  can  be  no 
more  than  a  collection  of  these  sayings  is  denied.  In  giving 
titles  to  books  it  is  common  to  name  them  after  soim-  subject 
which  is  conspicuous  in  them,  even  when  it  occupies  but  a 
small  part  of  the  space.  The  title  Gospel  is  itself  an  instance 
of  this,  as  are  also  the  titles  Genesis,  Exodus,  Numbers  and 
others  in  the  Old  Testament.  Now  the  "Oracles"  of  Jesus 
occupy  nuich  the  greater  part  of  Matthew's  book,  for  besides 
his  shorter  sayings  and  conversations,  it  contains  nineteen  for- 
mal si)eeches  from  his  lips  eovering  more  than  half  the  pag(s 
of  the  book.  Mark,  on  tiie  other  hand,  devotes  to  formal 
speeches  only  28  per  cent,  of  his  space.  To  distinguish  ^lat- 
thew,  then,  as  haviug  composed  "the  Oracles,"  is  a  correct 
representation  of  his  work  as  we  have  it,  and  it  is  a  more  aj>- 
propriate  expression  than  the  word  Gospel.  Neither  J^ipias 
nor  Justin  was  pleased  with  the  latter  title. 

Furthermore,  the  Apostle  Paul  uses  this  term  for  tiie  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  in  general,  Siiying  of  the  Jews,  "  They 
were  entrusted  with  the  Oracles  of  God  "  (Rom.  iii,  '2.)  The 
term  Oracles,  tlien,  is  an  appropriate  expression  lor  the  subject 
matter  of  Matthew's  GiJspel,  and  Papias  showed  good  sense  in 
using  it. 

Second,  it    is   argued    that    the  work  of  Matthew,  which -^'^*«^'^e 

I.       •  •  I  Tir       1  I  1  Iiin^uaReof 

1  apias  mentions,  can  not  be  our  Matthew,  because  that  was  his  Mat- 
written  in  Hebrew  and  this  in  Greek.'  The  question  turns  ^'*^^" 
upon  the  meaning  of  Papias.  If  he  means  that  the  only  coui- 
position  !)y  Matthew  known  to  him  was  composed  in  Hebrew, 
then  the  conclusion,  so  fiir  as  his  testimony  is  eoiicerncd,  is 
logical.  But  tiuit  it  is  unfair  to  construi'  his  language  thus  is 
evident  from   the   fat-t,  that    later   writers   who  arc  known   to 

8ion  UHpd  at  tliat  pericjd  to  mean  wrote  in  Hebrew,  it  can  not  be  as- 

anythinj,'  beyond  a  mere  collection  serted   that  he  wrote  at  all.     It  is 

of  8ayin<,'s  of  Jesus  which  were  es-  therefore  perfectly  certain  from  this 

timated  as  oracular  or  divine,  nor  testimony  that  Matthew  can  not  be 

IS   there  any  reason    for   thinkint,'  declared  the  <lirect   author  of   the 

tliat  ra  ?.6yta  (the  oracles)  was  here  Greek  Canonical  Gospel  bearing'  his 

used  in  any  other  Rens«\"    //>.  I.  464.  name."     Ih  47(1. 
'  "  If  it  be  denied  that  .Matthew 


138  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

have  had  our  Greek  ]Matthew,  and  to  have  believed  that  it 
came  from  Matthew's  pen,  speak  in  the  same  way  of  the  origi- 
nal composition.  So  speak  Irenaeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  and 
others.^  That  they  do  so,  proves  clearly  that  the  use  of  such 
language  is  not  inconsistent  ^\■ith  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek 
Gospel  of  jNIatthew,  nor  with  the  belief  that  jNIatlhew  himself 
composed  the  latter.  l*apias,  then,  like  them,  may  have  had 
the  Greek  Gospel  and  may  have  believed  that  it  came  from 
MatthcM',  notwithstanding  the  assertion  in  (piestion.  The  only 
rational  way  in  which  these  authors  could  have  held  this 
double  position,  was  by  believing  that  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gospel  first  in  Hebrew  and  then  in  Greek.  It  is  a  fact,  how- 
ever, not  to  be  overlooked  in  thife  connection,  that  not  one  of 
the  writers  referred  to,  including  Papias  himself,  claims  to  have 
seen  the  Hebrew  Gospel."  Its  use  had  necessarily  been  con- 
fined to  Jewish  Christians;  and  it  liad  gone  out  of  use  with 
the  disappearance  from  the  church  of  its  Hebrew  element. 
As  to  his  si-  Third,  it  is  argned  that  Papias  could  not  iiave  known  the 
Luke  and  Gospcls  of  Lukc  and  John,  or  he  would  have  mentioned  them 
*'*^^*""  also;  and  Eusebius,  through  whom  alone  we  have  knowledge 

of  what  he  wrote,  would  liave  recorded  the  fact:  for,  it  is 
said,  "  Eusebius  never  fails  to  state  what  the  Fathers  say 
about   tlie  books  of  the   Xew  Testament."^     This  argument 

Two  things  contains  two  assumptions  :     First,  tiiat  Papias  -would  certainly 
assumed.  -ii  /-niiiii  i  i 

have  mentioned  tliese  two  Gospels,  had  he  known  them;  and 
second,  that  had  he  mentioned  them  Eusebius  would  have 
noted   tiie   fact.     That  the   last  is  a  false  assumption   a])pears 

'The  autliDi- 111  Supernatural  lie-  state  what  tlic   Fath(>r8  nay  about 

ligion  himself  (juotes  to  this  elFect  tho  books  of  the  Xew  Ti'stanicnt, 

the  words  of  these  and  other  au-  does  not  mention  that  Papias  knew 

thors  (ii.  471-474)  without  seeming  either  the  third  or   fourth  gospel, 

to  know  that  he  thereby  furnishes  Is   it  possible  to    suppose   that  i} 

evidence   to   refute  his  own  argu-  Papias  had  been  acquainted  with 

ment.  those  gospels  he  would   not  have 

'This  fact  is  emphasized  l)y  Al-  asked  information  about  them  from 

ford   (Prolegomena  to   Cireck   Now  the    Presl)yter8,  or   that    Eusebius 

Testament  c.  IT.    'i  2)   who   shows  would   not  have  recorded  it  as  he 

that  an  apparent  exreplion  in  the  did    that  regarding  the   works  as- 

case  of  Jerome  is  not  a  real  one.  cribcd    to   INIatthow    and    Mark?" 

•■"'Eusebius,  who  never   fails  to  Sup.  Rr'i.  TI.  484. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  1',]'^) 

from  the  j)Iiin  Mliich  Ku.sebius  followed  in  writing  of  .such 
mutters.  After  mentioning  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  h?  1  been  disputed,  and  those  which  had  been  undis- 
]>uted,  he  declared  it  his  plan  to  name  the  previous  writers 
who  had  made  use  of  any  of  the  former,  and  to  quote  what 
had  been  related  by  them  concerning  the  latter.^  In  carrying 
out  this  ])Ian,  he  fails  to  mention  many  rxpress  quotations 
from  the  undisputed  books  made  by  writers  whose  works  have 
come  down  to  ns,  although  he  uses  these  M'orks  frequently  for 
other  purposes.  Had  these  works  been  lost,  like  those  of 
Papias,  this  argument  would  liavc  been  applied  to  them  also, 
and  how  falsely  we  can  easily  see."  It  should  also  be  carefully 
observed  that  the  citation  which  he  does  make  from  Papias  is 
in  pej'fect  keej)ing  with  his  plan.  It  is  not  a  quotation  made 
by  Papias  from  Matthew  or  ^lark,  but  a  piece  of  information 
Avhich  he  gives  concerning  the  origin  of  these  two  books.  In 
regard  to  Luke  and  John,  Papias  had  no  occasion  to  record 
such  information,  because  Luke  tells  his  readers  plainlv  the ^*"'*^*^®'"" 

'  for  an 

origin  of  his  book  (i,  1-4),  and  that  of  John  was  well  known  account  of 
in  the  region  in  which  Papias  lived,  for  there  John  had  pub- 
lished it  after  many  then  living  were  born.  The  absurdity  of 
the  argument  that  Papias  knew  nothing  of  the  Gospels  of 
Ivuke  and  John  because  he  mentions  them  not,  and  that  if  he 
had  known  them  and  mentioned  them  Eusebius  would  cer- 
tainly have  said  so,  is  strikingly  exposed  by  Dr.  Lightfoot  as 
follows:  "  Xot  only  is  it  maintained  that  A  knows  nothing  of 
B,  l^ecause  he  says  nothing  of  B,  but  it  is  further  assiuned  that 

'  "But  as  my  history  proceeds  I  iii.  ">,  Dr.  Lightfoot's  translation, 

will  take  care  alon<.'  with  the  sno-  ^Dr.  T.ightfoot,  in    an    elaborate 

reasions  (of    the  liishops),  to  imli-  article  on  this  qnestion  publi.shed 

rate  what  church  writers  from  time  in   the   Contenii)orary   Review   for 

to  time  have  made  use  of  any  of  January,  1875,  presents  this  answer 

tlie  disputed  Ixtoks,  anfl  what  has  with  great  force,  and  shows  con- 

})een  .said  by  them  concerning  the  clusively  that  Eusebius  thus  dealt 

Canonical  and  acknowledged  Scrip-  with    the  writings  of    Clement   of 

tures,  and  anything  that  (they  have  Rome,  Ignatius,   Poiycarp,    Justin 

said)  concerning tliose  which  do  not  Martyr,   Theophilns    of     .\ntiocb. 

belong  to  this  class."     Errlr».   Hint,  and  Irenjeus. 


Luke  and 
John. 


140  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

A  kno\\  .s  nothing  of  B,  because  C  does  not  say  that  A  knows 
anything  of  B."  * 
As  to  his  Fourth,  it  is  urged  that  even  if  Papias  knew  some  of  the 

for  tradi-     Nsw  Testament  books,  he  regarded  them  as  of  little  import- 
tion.  ance,  seeing  that  he  preferred  oral  tradition  as  a  source  of  in- 

formation.- This  argument  misrepresents  the  reason  which  he 
gives  for  preferring  the  living  voice  to  books,  and  it  falsely  as- 
sumes that  the  books  referred  to  are  his  Gospels.  The  facts 
of  the  case  are  these  :  He  writes  a  work  in  five  books  under 
the  title,  "  Exposition  of  Oracles  of  our  l^ord."  The  oracles 
which  he  expounds  are  contained  in  sacred  books,  among 
which  Matthew  and  ^lark  are  expressly  mentioned.  In  his 
preface  to  this  Expo.'^ition,  he  speaks  of  the  aids  which  he  em- 
ployed, .saying:  "But  I  shall  not  regret  to  subjoin  to  my  in- 
terpretations also  for  your  benefit,  whatsoever  I  have  at  any 
time  accurately  ascertained  and  treasured  up  in  my  memory,  as 
I  ha\e  received  it  from  the  elders,  and  have  recorded  it  in 
order  to  give  additional  confirmation  to  tlie  truth  by  my  testi- 
mony ; "  and  in  this  connection  he  adds:  "For  1  do  not 
think  that  I  derived  so  much  benefit  from  books  as  from  the 
living  voiceoftho.se  that  are  still  surviving."^  The  benefit 
referred  to  is  in  the  way  of  confirn)ing  his  interpretations;  and 
his  comparison  is  not  that  of  the  living  voice  with  the  books 
on  which  he  was  commenting,  but  that  of  the  former  with 
books  which  were  used  as  helps  in  his  Exposition.  In  brief, 
he  was  commenting  on 'the  Gospels,  and  he  derived  more  help 
in  this  task  from  conversing  with  men  who  had  .seen  the 
Apostles,  than  from  reading  the  books  of  uninspired  men.  If 
a  commentator  on  th(»  Gosjk'Is  could  enjoy  tlie  .<ame  privilege 
to-day,  he  wouhl  j)rol)ably  j)ri/('  it  as  highly. 
^_^*^'''^  Fifth,  it  is  urged  as  a  special  ol)jt(ti<»n  in  reference  to  what 

l*apias  .siys  of  Peter's  conneeti<iii  with  the  book-  of  INFark,  that 

'Contemporary    Review,     .lanu-  hcneficial  source  ot  information  re- 

ary,  1875,  J).  170.  j,'ai<linjLr  evangelical  history.     'For 

*  "  Whatever  books  Papias  knew,  I  held  that  what  was  to  be  fiorivod 

however,  it  is  certain,  from  his  own  from  books,'  he   say.s,  'did  not  so 

expres.''    declaration,  that    he    as-  profit  me  as  that  from  the  livinpan<l 

cribed  little  imj)ortttnce  to  them,  abidinj;  voice.'  "     Si. p.  Hd.  II.  486. 

and  preferred  tradition  as  ;i   uHjro  '  Krrks.  HiM.  iii.  30. 


Mark 


NEW    TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  141 

this  can  not  refer  t<»   our  Mark    because   in  this  Peter  is  less •^'°™**' 

siona; 

conspicuous  than  he  nui.st  haw  been  in  that,  and  less  so  than 
lie  is  in  the  other  (Jospels.^  That  Peter  is  far  less  conspicuous 
in  Mark's  Gospel  than  in  the  other  three  is  true ;  for  nearly 
all  of  the  incidents  which  reflect  credit  on  Peter  are  omitted 
by  Mark."  Tliis,  Innsi'ver,  instead  of  proving  that  the  state- 
ment of  Papias  can  nt)t  have  reference  to  our  second  Gospel, 
bears  -in  the  opposite  direction ;  for  unless  Peter  was  a  vain- 
glorious man,  of  which  tliere  i«  not  the  .slightest  indication,  a 
narrative  derived  from  his  oral  teaching  would  make  him  less 
conspicuous  than  one  derived  from  other  sources.  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, then,  is  in  this  particular  precisely  what  we  .should  expect 
if  the  representation  of  Papias  is  true. 

Sixth  and  last,  it  is  argued  that  our  Mark  can  not  be  the  ^^ '^^'^^  "^ 
one  of  which  Papias  .speaks,  because  the  latter  says  tliat  Mark 
"did  not  ari-ange  in  order  the  things  which  were  either  .said  or 
done  by  Jesus,"  whereas  our  Mark  has  "  the  most  evident 
character  of  orderly  arrangement."^  It  is  true  that  Mark's 
Gospel  has  an  orderly  arrangement,  but  its  order  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  other  gospels,  and  notably  from  Mat- 
thew's which  in  some  other  respects  it  most  resembles.  Such 
is  the  difference  that  .should  one  form  a  conception  of  the  order 
of  events  from  reading  Matthew,  as  Papias  probably  did,  and 
as  many  beginners  in  Gospel  study  now  do,  he  could  but  be 
struck,  on  reading  Mark,  with  the  very  thought  ex])re.s.sed  by 
Papias,  that  Mark  has  not  arranged  in  order  (that  is,  in  the 
order  of  time)  the  things  done  and  said.  Xot  until  he  had 
made  a  careful  .study  of  the  two  gospels  with  reference  to 
chronological  order,  would  lie  think  otherwise.  The  remark 
of  Papias,  then,  is  precisely  the  remark  that  he  would  naturally 
make  if,  in  ])reparing  his  work  on  the  Oracles  of  the  I.(Ord,  he 
had  been  chiefly  absorbed  in  the  study  of  Matthew  when-  these 
Oracles  are  so  abundantly  found. 

~^  Sup.  Rcl.  IT.  452-4o.'>.  part  in  any  important  degree  from 

'  For  the  sppciScations  see  p.  115.  the  order  of  the  other  two  eynopt- 

'"Now   it  is  impossible   in  the  ic.<»,  ami  which,  tliroufjhout,  has tlie 

work  of   Mark  here  descriijod  [by  most  evident  character  of  orderly 

Pdpias]   to  recognize  our    present  arrangenient."     Sup.  HeL  II.  4.'>B. 

second  Gospel,  whii-1.  doi's  imI  de- 


142  GENUI^■E^•EHS  OF  THK 

Astotheevi-  j^  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  still  earlier  writers  whom 
earlier  writ- we  have  cited,  Polycarp,  Barnabas  and  Clement  of  Rome,  the 
'^^^  only  position  taken  by  infidel  writers  worthy  of  serious  con- 

sideration, is  this :  that  the  quotations  which  are  cited  from 
them  were  derived  not  from  our  New  Testament  books,  but 
from  other  documents  older  than  these  and  from  oral  tradi- 
tion.^ The  express  quotations  are  not,  of  course,  disposed  of 
in  this  way,  because  they  can  not  be ;  and  these  have  forced 
the  admission  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  two  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  to  the  Galatians,  together  with  the 
book  of  Revelation  are  genuine.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in 
those  early  times  many  sayings  of  Jesus  not  recorded  in  our 
Gospels  were  current  among  the  disciples,  and  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  some  of  them  Mere  adopted  by  these  writers,  as 
at  least  one  was  at  a  later  ])eriod  by  Justin;  but  that  the  mass 
)f  those  found  in  these  writers  and  also  found  in  our  New 
Testament  books  were  derived  from  other  sources,  is  an  assump- 
tion supported  by  no  proof  and  in  itself  it  is  wholly  improb- 
able. It  could  be  adopted  only  by  one  who  had  previously 
and  from  other  considerations  reached  the  conclusion  that 
these  writers  wrote  at  an  earlier  period  than  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers.  The  argument  is  illogical,  because  it  assumes 
the  very  thing  in  dispute.  If  it  be  said  that  though  it  may 
not  be  certain  that  these  passages  were  derived  from  such  other 
sources,  they  certainly  may  have  been,  and  that  this  throws 
doubt  upon  the  evidence;  the  answer  is,  that  the  number  of 
these  quotations  is  too  great,  and  their  correspondence  with 
what  is  written  in  the  New  Testament  too  close,  to  allow  the 
probability  of  such  a  supposition.  The  position,  therefore, 
while  it  is  ingenious,  and  the  only  one  on  which  a  skeptic  in 
regard  to  the  genuineness  of  our  books  can  stand,  must  be  set 
aside  as  arbitrary  and  illogical. 

'  Tlic  author  of  Supernatural   He-  Christians,   were   no  douht   orally 

ligion,   aftor    discussing    separately  curreiit    amongst    thorn,    and    still 

the   quotations    from    the    authors  more   c-ertainly   Mere    recorded    hy 

named,  makes  Uic  following  remark  many  of  the  nun\erous  gospels  then 

as  applicable  to  all :  ''  >«ow  we  must  in  circulation,  as  th.ey  are  by  several 

repeat  that  all  such  sayings  of  Jesus  of  our  own."     II.  270. 
were  the  common  j)ropertv  of  early 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  143 

We  shall  now  consider  briefly  the  objections  of  rationalists  *^*''^<^''''"'^ 

,      •  1-1  1  •  ,  1  111  ^'^^^  '°^^'"- 

to  the  internal  evidence  which  we  have  aciclucea.  naievi- 

Those  writers  who  «-Ieny  the   realitv  of  miracles  unite  inf^"^^=  "^ 

•^  '       ,  to  the  Cos- 

denying  the  genuineness  of  all  the  gospels  in  preference  to  ad- pels; 
mitting  it  and  charging  their  writers  with  deliberate  falsehood. 
This  tienial  is  based,  not  on  internal  evidence,  but  on  the 
ground  of  opinions  formed  independently  of  these  narratives; 
and  its  discussion  belongs  to  the  question  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  gospels  and  not  to  that  of  their  genuineness.  If  the 
miraculous  accounts  are  false,  the  falsehoods  may  have  been 
written  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  as  well  as  by 
other  Christian  writers. 

No  internal   evidence  against  the  genuineness  of  the  first f."^*'!*^^ 

°  °  _  first  thri.'C 

three  gospels  has  been  adduced,  except  such  as  springs  from<;ospeis; 
the  theories  of  the  various  objectors  as  to  what  would  have 
been  their  characteristics  had  they  been  genuine.  It  is  not 
claimed  that  any  facts  mentioned  in  them  or  alluded  to,  were 
beyond  the  reach  of  their  reputed  authors,  or  that  any  of  the 
words  employed  may  not  have  been  known  to  them.  But  it 
is  assumed  that  had  tliey  been  genuine  they  would  have  been 
more  definite  in  their  statements  of  time,  and  of  the  connec- 
tion of  events;  and  that  they  would  have  harmonlzod  more 
completely  with   ono  another  in  regard   to  historical  details.' 

'  Meyer's  objection  to  the  gen-  eye-witness  and  a  participator  in 
uineness  of  the  gospel  of  Matthew  the  events,  even  upon  the  assump- 
may  be  cited  as  a  fair  specimen  of  tion  of  a  plan  of  arrangement  carried 
the  mode  of  reasoning  applied  by  out  mainly  in  accordance  with  the 
Rationalists  to  all  of  the  first  sul)ject  matter;  not  mereJy  in  a  pur- 
three  gospels,  except  that,  unlike  tial  want  of  clearness  and  direitiu'ss, 
the  Rationalists  in  general,  he  ad-  which  is  a  prominent  feature  in 
mits  the  genuineness  of  .John  and  many  of  tlu'  historical  portions 
uses  it  to  discredit  >ratthew.  He  (evi-n  in  I'x.  0,  tF  iniluded),  and  not 
says:  "In  the  form  in  wliich  the  seMom  makes  itself  fvlt  to  such  a 
gospels  now  exist  it  can  not  have  degree  that  wo  must  in  this  respect 
originally  proceeded  from  the  hands  allow  the  preference  to  the  accounts 
of  the  apostle  Matthew.  The  evi-  of  Mark  and  Luke ;  not  merely  in 
dence  in  favor  of  this  view  consists  the  want  of  historical  rotiwrtion  in 
not  merely  of  the  ninny  statements  the  citation  and  introduction  of  a 
of  time,  place  and  other  things  suhslnntial  portion  of  the  tlidai'tic 
which  are  irreconcilable  with  tiic  discnurses  of  Jeens,  by  v.hich  the 
living  recollection   of   an  apostolic    fa<t  is  disc'iw  mI  ibnt  they  wrc  not 


144  G£Nl'INENi:s8  OF  THE 

These  assumptions  are  based,  lik-e  the  one  in  regard  to  mir- 
acles, on  purely  dogmatic  grounds;  and  the  questions  which 
they  raise  pertain  not  so  much  to  the  genuineness  of  the  gos- 
pels as  to  their  authenticity.  We  deter  the  consideration  of 
them  to  Part  Third  of  our  inquiry. 
astoUie  jjj  I'cprard  to  the  eospel  ascribed  to  John  the  case  is  quite 

fourth  Gos-  °  °.  ,     ^ 

pel.  different.     xVlthough  it  was  never  classed  among  the  disputed 

books  in  ancient  times,  its  genuineness  has  recently  become  a 
subject  of  heated  controversy,  and   chiefly  on  the  ground  of 
internal  evidence.'     The  discussion  has  taken   a  wide  range, 
and   lias  extended   to  many  minute  and   collateral   questions 
which   have  but   little  bearing  on   the  main   issue.     We  will 
state  and  consider  only  those  objections  which  have  sufficient 
plausibility  to  deserve  attention. 
Objeciion,         1.  It  is  argued  from  internal  evidence  that  the  author  of 
thorwas      ^his  gospel  was  not  a  Jew,  as  was  the  apostle  John.     The  evi- 
iiotaJew;  (]i.ne(;  in  suj)port  of  this  objection   lies  chiefly  in  the  fact  ob- 
vious to  every  careful   reader  of  the  gospel,  that  the  author 

interwoven  in  a  living  connection  of  all,  the  many,  and  m  part,  every 

with  the  above;  decisive,  the  recep-  essential  correction  whicli  onr  Mat- 

tion  of  narratives  the  uniiistorical  thew  ninst  receive  from  the  fourth 

character  of  which  must  certainly  gospel,  and  several  of  which  (es])e- 

have    been    known    to  an   apostle  cially    those    relating    to    tlie    last 

(such  as,  even  in  the  history  of  the  supper  of  the  risen  fSaviour)  are  of 

Passion,  that  of  the  watchers  by  the  such  a  kiml  that  the  variations  in 

grave,  and  of    the    resurrection  of  question  certainly  exclude  apostolic 

many  dead  bodies) ;  the  reception  testimony  on   one  side,   and    this, 

of  the  preliminary  history  with  its  considerinjrtiie  genuineness  of  John 

legendary  enlargements,  which  far  which  we  must  decidedly  assume, 

oversteps  the  original  beginning  of  can   only  afTect   the  credibility   of 

the  gospel  announcement  (Mark  i.  Matthew.     To  this,  moreover,  is  to 

1,  cotiip.  John  i.  19)  and  its  original  be  addcvl  the  relation  of  dependence 

contents  (Acts  x.  .'i7  fT;  J*aj)ias  in  which  we  must  assume  of  our  ]\Ial- 

Eusebius  H.  E.,  iii.  39;     the  things  thew  ujion  Mark,  which  is  inconi- 

which    were    spoken    or    done  by  patible  with  the  composition  of  the 

C/'hrist    ),  and   which   already   pre-  former  by  an  apostle."     hilvodnclinv 

sents  a  later   historical    formation,  lo  Com.  on  Mallhinr,  Sir.  If. 

added  to  the  original  gospel  histoiy;  'The  cfintroversy  was  opened  by 

the  reception  of  the  enlarged  narra-  Hretschneider  in  a  work  published 

tive  of  the  temptation,  the  non-de-  in  1820,  under  the  title  Prohnliilin  <h' 

velopod  form  of  which   in   Mark   is  Krungrlidii  Fjil.tlollAjnrnniix  AimHlnli. 
certainly  iildrr;  but  iihi>1  strikingly 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  145 

habitually  speaks  of  the  Jews  in  the  third  person,  as  if  he  were 
uot  one  of  them,  and  that  he  distinguishes  them  constantly 
irom  Jesus  and  his  disciples  who  were  also  Jews.* 

In  answer  to  this  objection  we  remark:  /'7/-.S'^,  that  this  was 
the  most  natural  way  for  the  author,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile, 
to  express  himself;  for  he  wrote  long  after  the  disciples  had 
become  a  distinct  community,  sejiarated  from  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  and  how  could  he  speak  so  intelligibly  of  the  bulk 
(if  the  Jewish  })eople  who  had  stood  op])osed  to  Christ  and 
his  disciples  as  by  calling  them  the  Jews?  Second, 
the  apostle  Paul,  himself  a  "Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,"  had 
already,  long  before  this  gospel  was  Avritten,  made  free  use  of 
the  same  phraseology  in  such  expressions  as  these:  "To  the 
Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew, that  1  might  gain  the  Jews;"  "Give 
no  occasion  of  stinnbling,  either  to  Jews,  or  to  Greeks,  or  to 
the  ('hurch  of  ( Jod."  ■  The  argument  in  question,  if  valid, 
wouhl  prove  that  J'aul's  epistles  were  not  written  by  a  Jew. 
Third,  both  Matthew  and  iSIark,  who  were  confessedly  Jews, 
have  left  one  instance  each  of  the  same  use  of  the  word,  while 
Luke  has  left  but  two,  though  he  is  a  Gentile  and  in  his  writ- 
ings we  would  expect,  according  to  this  argument,  to  find  it 
most  frccpiently  of  all.'*  These  considerations  show  that  the 
argument  is  without  forcc^;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  the 
phraseology  on  which  it  is  based  is  what  we  should  expect  to 
find. 

'"  He  writes  at  all  times  as  ono  the  truth,  and   the   ])ersc'cnturs   ai 

who  not  only  is  not  a  Jew  himself,  the  Christ."     Sup.  RvL,  ii.  414. 
hut  has  nothing  to  <lo  with   their       •'I.  Cor.  ix.  20;    x.  :V_'.     See  the 

laws  and  cn.stonjs.    He. speaks  every-  followinji;:    "The    Jews    re(]uire    a 

where  of  the  fea.sts  of  'the  Jews,'  sign  "  (I.  Cor.  i.  22) ;  "Of  the  Jew.s 

'the   pa.sMjver  of    the   Jews,'    'the  hve  times  I  received  forty  stripes 

mannerof  the  pnrifyin'_'()f  the  Jews,'  save  one"  (II.  Cor.  xi.  '24);  "And 

'the  Jews  feast  of  tabernacles,'  'as  the    rest  of    the   Jews   dis.seml)led 

the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury,'  likewise   with  him"   (Cal.  ii.  1:5); 

'the  Jews  preparation  day,' and  so  "Ye  also  sullered  the  same  things 

on.     ^Moreover,  tlie  Jews  arc  repre-  <if  your  own  coiintrymen.  even  as 

sented  as  contnuially  in  vn-nlent  op-  tin-y  <lid  of   the. lews"     il.  Thes.s. 

position  to  Jesus,  and  seeking  to  kill  ii.  14. 

him  ;  and  the  word  *  Jew  '  is  the  lui-       *  "  This  sayinir  was  spread  abroad 

failing  indication  of  the  enemies  of  amonir  the  Jews  "  (  Matt,  xxviii.  l.">t; 


146  GEXriXEXESS  OF  THE 

that  the  au-        o.  It  is  said  tliat  the  difference  between  the  author  as  rep- 

thorcannot  •i>i  ti  pi  •• 

be  John,  be- resented  by  himself  and  the  John  of  the  Synoptics,  is  proof 
Sr^rti^-''^  that  the  author  was  not  John.^  The  specifications  chiefly  re- 
represent-  lied  on  to  support  this  assertion,  are  the  following:  First — The 
author  represents  himtself  as  being  known  to  the  high  priest 
(xviii.  15),  and  it  is  held  that  this  could  not  have  been  true  of 
the  young  fisherman  of  Galilee."  But  the  absurdity  of  this 
inference  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  common 
things  in  life  for  men  in  high  positions  to  have  acquaintance 
with  others  in  the  humblest  callings.  Second — The  author 
represents  himself  as  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved," 
whereas,  neither  in  the  other  Gospels,  nor  in  Paul's  Epistles, 
nor  elsewhere  except  in  this  Gospel,  is  John  represented  as  if 
he  occupied  such  a  position  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  preeminence 
is  uniformly  given  to  Peter.''  It  is  true  that  the  preeminence 
in  activity  and  leadership  is  elsewhere  given  to  Peter,  and  it  is 
tacitly  conceded  to  him  even  in  tliis  Gospel ;  "  '  but  the  dis- 
tinction claimed  by  the  author  for  himself  is  that  of  sympa- 
thetic affection  such  as  appears  in  his  leaning  on  the  Master's 
breast  at  the  suppel-.  The  two  representations  are  not  incon- 
sistent. It  is  true  also  that  such  a  relation  between  John  and 
the  Master  is  nowhere  else  alluded  to ;  but  this  is  no  ground 
for  denying  its  existence.  That  it  was  credited  as  a  fact  by 
the  contemporaries  of  the  author  is  evident  from  the  consider- 
ation, that  in  the  absence  of  such  a  belief  he  could  not  hope  to 
be  understood  when  designating  himself  as  "  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."  But  the  belief  can  not  be  satisfactorily  ac- 
counted for  unless  it  had  came  down  to  the  time  at  which  the 
Gospel  was  written  as  an  authentic  tradition.     ^Moreover,  the 

"  For  the  I'liarisccs  and  all  the  Jews,  disfiplo   indirated   to  be  John  the 

except  thoy  wash,"  etc.  (Mark  vii.  son  of   Zcbedee,  the  fourth   frospcl 

3);  "He  sent  unto  him  the  elders  ii:ivcs  a  representation  fif  him  (piite 

of  the  Jew.s"  (Luke  vii.  .'i) ;  ".\ri-  did'erent    from    the   Synoptics   and 

matliea.  a  city  of  the  Jews"    Cxxiii.  other  writings."     Sii/i.  Rcl.,  ii.  42'). 

511.  2  7/>.  427,  428. 

'  "  Without    paiisint:  to  eonsifier  '  Ih.  429-4.33. 

the  slight ne.ss  of  this  evidence  [the  *  See  the  incidents  recorde<l  in   i. 

evidence  that  John  i.s  the  author],  42;  vi.  (58;   xiii.  (',;  xviii.  10;  xxi.  .!, 

it    is    ohvKMis    Miat    snpposinir   the  7,  II. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  147 

evident  sincerity  of  the  author  forbids  the  supposition  that  he 
falsely  represented  himself  as  John  by  styling  himself  "  the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."  Third — It  is  claimed  that  the 
author  represents  himself  as  not  an  eye-witness  of  what  he 
records,  by  appealing  for  confirmation  of  his  word  to  some 
one  who  was.  The  alleged  ap})eal  is  in  the  following  passages  : 
"  And  he  that  hath  seen  hath  borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is 
true  ;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  said  true,  tiiat  ye  also  may  be- 
lieve "  (xix.  3oy.  "  This  is  the  disciple  who  beareth  witness  of 
these  things,  and  wrote  these  things;  and  we  know  that  his 
witness  is  true  "  (xxi.  24).'  In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  pas- 
sages we  remark,  that  inasmuch  as  the  author  uniformly  re- 
fers to  himself  in  the  third  person,  the  fact  tliat  he  uses  the 
third  person  here  can  not  justify  the  inference  that  he  refers  to 
another.  No  one  who  reads  the  passage  without  a  foregone 
conclusion  can  fail  to  realize  that  it  is  but  a  .strong  reiteration 
of  the  author's  own  testimony.  It  is  somewhat  surprising  that 
he  should  employ  such  reiteration  in  rcgnrd  to  the  circum- 
stance to  which  it  is  applied,  the  issuing  of  blood  and  water 
from  the  side  of  Jesus,  but  he  may  liave  been  led  to  it  by 
some  special  dou])ts  on  this  ])oint  prevalent  when  the  Gos])el 
was  written.  It  must  be  admitted,  too,  that  this  appeal  to 
one's  certain  knowledge  of  the  fact,  is  an  unu.sual  way  of  sup- 
porting one's  testimony ;  but  though  unusual  it  is  not  unj)rece- 
dented.  Paul  does  the  same  when  he  says,  "  I  say  the  truth 
in  Chri.st,  I  lie  not,  my  conscience  bearing  witness  with  me  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  etc.  (Rofn.  ix.  1  ),  That  John  should  appeal 
to  the  certainty  of  his  knowledge  in  support  of  his  own  testi- 
mony is  no  more  singular  than  that  Paul  should  call  uj)  the 
testimony  of  his  own  conscience  to  support  his.      In  regard  to 

'  "That  the  aporftle  himself  could  Siq).  11,1.,  ii.  440.     "  Such  a  pas.saj?is 

have  written  of  himself  the  words  received  in  any  natural  sense,  or  in- 

in  xix.  3.")  is  impossible.    After  hav-  terpreteil  in  any  way  which  can  be 

ing  stated   .sf)  much  that   is   much  supi)()rted  by  evidence,  shows  that 

more  surprisintr  and   contradictory  tiie  writer  of  the  j^ospel  was  not  an 

to  all  experience  without  reference  eye-witness  of  the  events  recortled, 

to  any  witness,  it  would  indeed  liave  but   appeals    to    tlie    ti'stiniony   of 

been  strange  had  he  here  appealetl  othets."     lit.  445. 
to  himself  as  a  separate  individual." 


148  GENUINENESS  OF    IHE 

the  second  passngc  cited  above  we  remark,  that  the  last  clause 
of  it  was  certaiuly  written  by  some  persons  unknown  to  us, 
and  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  they  could  have  written  this 
clause  without  writing  the  whole  sentence.  Their  purpose 
was  to  identify  the  author  of  the  Gospel  with  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple just  mentioned  before,  and  to  certify  the  reliability  of 
his  testimony.  The  form  of  their  statement  was  evidently 
suggested  by  that  of  the  author  in  xix.  35.  If  it  be  thought 
strange  that  such  endorsement  of  the  testimony  of  an  Apostle 
would  be  made  l)y  any  other  persons,  we  should  remember 
that  these  persons,  though  unknown  to  us,  were  known  to 
those  who  first  received  this  Gospel,  and  that  they  may  have 
been  men  who.se  testimony  would  add  some  weight  to  that  of 
John — they  may  have  been,  like  him,  eye-witnesses  of  many 
events  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To 
argue  as  if  they  were  not  is  to  argue  from  our  ignorance. 

that  he  can        3    jS^nothcr  grouud  of  obiection  is  the  striking  difference 
not  be  ="  .       "^  r,  • 

johu.be-     between  the  matter  of  this  Gospel  and  that  of  the  Synoptics. 

cause. .f      Xiiat  this  difference  is  very  great,  leaving  but  little   matter  in 

aiffereuce  .'    o  '  o 

ill  matter  common,  is  kuown  to  every  student  of  these  narratives;  but 
Synoptics-  ^^^'^^  ^^^^  difference  does  not  amount  to  a  contrndiction,  as  all 
rationalists  a.ssert,^  is  equally  well  known  by  all  who  have 
carefully  compared  them.  It  grows  exclusively  out  of  the 
plan  of  the  author,  which  evidently  contemplated  the  presenta- 
tion of  certain  events  and  certain  phases  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  not  found  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  not  commonly 
recited  in  the  oral  teaching  of  the  early  preachers.  The  de- 
tails are  so  numerous  that  we  can  not  specifv  them  here  ;  nor 
is  it  important  that  we  .should,  .seeing  that  they  are  made  famil- 
iar by  any  ordinary  course  of  instruction  in  sacred  history, 
aspecific.i-  \^e  ^jjjiii  „(3tij.,.  ,,„|^.  „,^^.  specification.      It  is  affirmed  that  the 

tion ;  •  ' 

'"The    difference    lietwccn    tho  not  ho  ncco])tt'fl  as  correet."     Siip^ 

fourth  gospel    :ni(l    the   Syiioptirs,  RfL,  ii.  451.     Thi.s  antlior  procetMis 

not  only  as  rcpanlH  the  teaeliinps  of  thrnufrh  a  number  of  pages  to  give 

Jesu.s,  but  also  the  faets  of  the  nar-  specifieations,  all  of  which  an^  fam- 

rative,  is  so  groat  that  it  is  imixts-  iliar  to    tho    ordinary    student    of 

sible  to  harmonize  thein,  and   no  sacred  liistory,  and  none  of  which 

one    who    soriously  considers    tho  are  really  diflicult  of  reconciliation 

matter  can  fail  to  soo  that  both  can  with  tho  synoptic  narratives. 


SVAV  TESTAMENT  15O0KS.  140 

Synoptics  limit  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  one  year,  and  confine 
his  labors  to  Galilee  except  the  closing  scenes  at  Jerusalem, 
while  the  fourth  Gospel  extends  the  time  to  more  than  three 
years,  and  mentions  several  visits  to  Jerusalem  previous  to  the 
last.'  This  representation  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  correct ;  but 
it  is  not  true  that  the  other  Gospels  limit  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
to  one  year.  They  date  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  after 
the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  his  death  in  Jeru- 
sah'm  at  the  beginning  of  a  Passover;  but  they  contain  not  a 
word  that  indicates  the  length  of  the  interval,  or  that  points 
to  one  year  rather  than  three.  The  sole  ground  for  the  as- 
sumption is  the  fact  that  the  only  Passover  wiiich  they  mention 
is  the  one  at  which  Jesus  suffered  ;  but  this  merely  shows  that 
they  are  silent  in  regard  to  other  Passovers,  not  that  others 
had  not  transpired.  Neither  is  it  true  that  they  confine  the 
labors  of  Jesus,  except  the  closing  scenes,  to  Galilee;  for  \vhile 
they  describe  no  visit  to  Jerusalem  till  the  last,  two  of  them 
show  a  knowledge  that  he  had  been  there  often.  They  do  so 
by  quoting  the  words  of  Jesus  addressed  to  Jerusalem  :  "  How 
often  wi'uld  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a 
hen  gathcreth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ve  would 
not;"  and  Luke  still  further  shows  his  knowledge  of  it,  by 
describing  a  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  home  of  Martha  and  Mary  at 
Bethany,  two  miles  from  Jerusalem,  previous  to  his  last 
journey.^     This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  specifications  under 

'•'The  Synoptics  oloarly  represent  aboA'c  was  so  npiKUfiit  to  Strauss 
tliPininistry  of  Jesus  as  havinp: been  that  ho  could  evade  it  f)nly  l>y  de- 
limited to  a  sin'_de  year,  and  his  nying  that  Jesus  uttered  them.  lie 
])reachin£r  is  confined  to  fialileo  and  says:  "This  expression  ran  Jt-sus 
Jerusalem,  where  his  career  cul-  least  of  all  have  used  where  J.ukt^ 
minates  at  the  fatal  Passover.  The  puts  it,  on  his  journey  to  Jerusa- 
fourth  gospel  distributes  the  teach-  lem,  and  before  he  had  once  during 
ing  of  Jesus  between  Galilee,  Sama-  his  jniblic  acti^^ty  seen  that  city, 
ria  and  Jerusalem,  makes  it  extend  Rut  even  in  Jeru.salem  itself,  after  a 
at  lca.st  over  three  years,  and  refers  sinj:le  stay  there  of  only  a  few  days, 
to  three  Pa.s.sovers  spent  by  Jesus  at  he  can  not  have  jiointed  out  how 
Jerusalem."  Suj>.  Ref.,  ii.  4o3.  o/Mi  he  had  attempted  in  vain  to 
'Matt,  xxiii.  r?7;  Luke  xiii.  34;  draw  its  iiihal)itants  to  himself, 
x.  3S-42.  The  force  of  the  evidence  Tlore  all  shifts  are  futile,  and  ft  mtist 
from    the    wirds  of    Jesua    quuluJ  bo  confessed  if  these  are  n-allv  tlm 


150  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

this  objection  ;  tliov  are  all  based  on  false   or  groundless  as- 
sumptions, 
that  he  can        4    xhe  fourth  objection  which  we  shall  mention  is  based  on 
johu.bc-    the  striking  difference  between  the  speeches  of  Jesus  found  in 
cause  his     |.|^g  fourth  Gospcl,  and  those   in  the  other  three.     It  is  held, 

speeches  of  ^  .  .        ,       ^  .  . 

Jesus  are  so  tiiat  if  the  portraiturc  of  Jesus  thus  given  in  the  nrst  three  is 
peculiar;  correct,  that  given  in  the  fourth  is  so  thoroughly  different  that 
it  must  be  false,  and  can  not  have  been  the  work  of  an  Apos- 
tle.^ The  principal  points  of  difference  on  which  the  objec- 
tion is  based  are  those  in  style;  in  the  representation  made  of 
Jesus  himself;  and  in  the  doctrine  of  salvation  which  he 
teaches.  His  style  in  the  Synoptics  is  much  simpler,  and  his 
speeches  in  the  main  are  much  shorter.  In  them  he  appears 
chiefly  as  the  Jewish  Messiah ;  in  John,  as  the  Son  of  God. 
In  them  he  insists  chiefly  on  deeds  of  obedience  and  benevo- 
lence as  the  ground  of  salvation;  in  John,  on  faith  in  himself. 
That  these  distinctions  exist  is  admitted ;  but  the  inference 
drawn  from  them  is  denied.  To  deny  that  Jesus  could  have 
spoken  on  different  occasions  and  to  different  persons  in  style 
as  different  as  that  to  which  we  refer,  is  not  only  to  deny  the 
supernatural  powers  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him,  but 
also  to  denv  that  versatility  of  genius  which  is  ascribed  to  him 

words  of  Christ  he  must  have  lab-  single  characteristic  of  the  simple 

ored  in. lerusalemoftener and  longer  eloquence  of    the  Sermon  on  the 

than  would  appear  from  the  synop-  IMount."    Sup.  Rrl.,  ii.  464.     "It  is 

tical   reports."      Life  of  Jesus,  249.  nnpossible  that  Jesus  can  have  two 

The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  such  diametrically  opposed  systems 

evades  the  issue,  and  says  only  this:  of  teaching— one  purely  moral,  the 

"Apologists  discover  indications  of  other    wholly    dogmatic;    one    ex- 

Hthree  years' ministry  in  Matt,  xxiii.  pressed  in  wonderfully  terse,  dear, 

'AT,  Luke  xiii.  "A ;  '  }Iow  often,'  etc. ;  brief  sayings  and  parables,  tiie  other 

and  also  in  Luke  xiii.  .52  f. :  'To-day,  in    long,  involved   and   difluse  di.s- 

to-morrow  and  the  third  day.' "    ii.  courses;   one  clothed   in  t lie  great 

453.  language  of    humanity,  the    other 

'"The  teaching   of    the  one   is  concealed   in  obscure,   philosophic 

totally  difTerent  from  that  of  the  terminology';  and  that  these  should 

others,  in  spirit,  form  and  termin-  liave  been  kept  so  distinct  as  they 

ology;  and  although  there  are  un-  are   in    the  .Synoptics   on   the   one 

doubtedly  fine  sayings  throughout  hanrl,  and  the  fourth  gospel  on  the 

the  work,  in  the  prolix  discourses  other."     Ih.  470. 
of  the   fonrtli   gns|K'l   tlicrf  is  not  a 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  151 

l)v  all  intelligent  unbelievers:  and  that  the  occasions  and  per- 
sons are  different  can  be  seen  by  a  glance  at  these  iu  the  seve- 
ral Gospels.  As  to  his  representation  of  himself,  his  divinity 
is  not  less  explicitly  asserted  in  the  Synoptics  than  in  John,  it 
is  only  asserted  less  frequently  and  discussed  less  elaborately.^ 
That  this  should  be  the  case  can  appear  strange  only  to  those 
who  deny  his  divinity,  as  the  objectors  do.  As  to  the  terms  of 
salvation,  while  faith  is  made  more  conspicuous  in  th('sj)eeches 
recorded  by  John,  its  necessity  is  constantly  implied  in  the 
obedience  emphasized  in  the  Synoptics.  The  final  test  sub- 
mitted at  the  close  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  "  He  that 
heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth  them,"  "  He  that 
heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth  them  not,"  turns  upon 
the  flith  or  the  unbelief  on  which  the  two  courses  of  ac- 
tion depend ;  the  supreme  blessing  pronounced  on  Peter  was 
for  a  confession  of  his  faith  ;  faith  is  made  explicitly  a  condi- 
tion of  salvation  in  the  apostolic  commission  as  preserved  by 
Mark,  and  by  implication  in  that  preserved  by  Matthew  ;  and, 
in  a  word,  all  the  matter  of  the  three  Gospels  is  evidently  in- 
tended to  lead  men  to  faith  in  Christ  as  a  necessary  condition 
of  salvation.  He  who  has  learned  the  simple  fundamental 
lesson  of  the  New  Testament,  that  faith  and  obedience  are 
both  necessary  to  the  final  salvation  of  accountable  beings, 
can  find  no  difficulty  in  the  fact  that  now  one  of  these  condi- 
tions and  then  the  other  receives  especial  emphasis. 

5.  The  stvle  of  the  speeches  of  Jesus  is  made  the  ground '^"'**^*^ 

-  '  ,  "  style  of  tht 

of  another  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the   fourth  Gospel,  writer  and 
The  style  of  the  speeches  is  the  same  in  its  general  features,  ^'^^^^j^^^^^ 
with   that   of  the   narrative,  and  from  this  it  is  inferred  that  Jesus  is  the 
they  can  not  be  the  real  speeches  of  Jesus  as  they  wouhl  be""" 
recalled  by  an   Apostle  ;  but  that  they  are  fictitious  speeches 
composed  by  the  author  and   jiiit   into  the  lips  of  Jesus.'     In 

'His   divine    authority  and  son-  the  ovi<Unt  traces  of  artifinal  (on- 

ship  are  aflirnicd  in  the  follnwinfr  stnu-tion  in  the  (liscoursc.i  and  iha- 

pa.s.sacros:  Matt.  \'ii.  22;  x.  1 ;  xi.  27  ;  logucs  of  the  fourth  pospel,  and  tli(> 

xiii.  41;  xvi.    Hi,  17,  27;  xviii.  20;  more  closely   those   are    examined 

xxii.  42-4.'>;  xxv.  :n-;i4;  xxviii.  20;  the  more  clear  does  it  heoome  ttiat 

Mark  ii.  5-10;  Luke  xxiv.  40.  they  are  not  penuine  reports  of  the 

'  "  We  liave  aliearly  pointed  nut  tenchincs  of  .Tesus.  hut  mere  ideal 


152  < ;  i: N I ■  1  n i:n i .ss  of  the 

answer  to  this  we  remark,  that  while  the  last  supposition,  if 
true,  would  account  for  the  sameness  of  style,  it  can  as  readily 
be  accounted  for  on  a  different  hypothesis.  If  we  suppose,  as 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  would  require,  that  Jesus  ac- 
tually spoke  in  the  style  represented,  the  similarity  of  style  is 
at  once  accounted  for  by  the  natural  inclination  of  an  admir- 
ing disciple  to  adopt  the  style  of  his  teacher.  It  is  certain 
tliat,  whether  John  wrote  this  Gospel  or  not,  his  whole  mental 
and  moral  nature  was  deeply  impressed  by  Jesus  while  living, 
and  that  dnring  the  half  century  and  more  in  which  he  had 
preached  and  meditated  upon  the  sayings  of  Jesus  previous  to 
the  supposed  date  of  this  book,  this  impression  was  made  still 
deeper;  why  then  should  it  be  thought  strange  that  in  speak- 
ing on  the  same  subject  with  his  adored  Lord,  he  should  have 
learned  to  employ  the  same  vocabulary,  and  to  frame  his  sen- 
tences in  the  same  style?  Again,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  in  writing  his  Gospel,  John  was  translating  into  Greek 
both  the  speeches  of  Jesus,  which  had  been  uttered  in  the 
current  Hebrew,  an\l  his  own  thoughts,  which  were  conceived 
in  the  same  tongue.  Et  is  the  style  of  this  translation  which 
we  are  considering,  and  not  the  original  style  of  either  John 
nr  Jesus.  But  the  style  in  which  a  writer  translates  his  own 
thoughts  into  a  foreign  langnage  and  that  in  which  he  trans- 
lates the  speeches  of  another  must  necessarily  be  the  same  so 
fixr  as  fidelity  to  the  original  will  allow, 
that  Joiui  (5    --pijjj  ijj^t;  obiection  which  we  sliall  notice  is  based  on  the 

fan  not  ^^  ,        j,     ,  , 

the  writer   style  of  the  Apostlc  John.      It   is  claimed  by  recent   skeptics 
of  both  the  in  general,  that  John   was   certainly  theauthor  of  the  Apoca- 

compositions  })y  the  niitliorof  the  necessarily  difreront  from  tliose  in 
fourth  gospel.  The  speeclies  of  John  the  Synoptics ;  for  wliereas  the  latter 
the  Haptist,  the  <liscoiirKes  of  .Jesus,  were  all  spoken  Ix'fore  tlie  haptisni 
and  the  reflections  of  tlie  evansrelist  of  Jesus,  the  former  were  all  uttered 
himself,  are  marked  by  the  same  after  that  event  ami  after  the  temp- 
peculiarity  of  style,  and  ])roceed  tation ;  yet  it  is  also  true  that  the 
from  the  same  mind."  Sup.  /l,l.,  ii.  latter  speeclies  arc  closi'ly  connected 
471,  As  regards  this  a.ssertion  con-  in  matter  with  the  former,  and  they 
cerninj,'  John  the  Baptist,  we  may  follow  the  same  train  of  thought  re- 
remark  that  the  speeches  quoted  spceting  Jesus, 
from   him   in   tlic  fonrtii  L'"spcl  arc 


NEW  TKHTAMENl'  BOOKS.  lo.'i 

lypso,  and  that  tlu'  imlical  ditiorencc  in  style  between  that  Apocaiyp-e 
book  and  the  luurth  Gospel  forbids  the  snpposition  that  he  Gospel, 
also  wrote  the  latter.'  It  is  claimed,  and  it  is  admitted,  that 
while  the  latter  composition  is  written  in  purer  Greek  than 
any  other  book  ui'  the  New  Testament,  the  Apocalypse  is  re- 
markable for  its  Hebraisms,  and  other  defects  in  style.  This 
ditferenee  was  observed  by  ih"  Greek  writers  of  the  earlv 
church;  and  it  is  one  of  the  causes  which  led  many  in  that 
period  to  deny  the  jj;(iuiineuess  of  the  Apocalypse  ;  for  then 
no  doul)t  existetl  as  to   the  genuineness  of  the  (Tospel.-      It  is 

'  "It  is  impo.ssil)le  to  assume  that  'Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  who 
ttie  author  of  the  gospel  was  one  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
and  the  same  person  with  the  author  century,  is  quoted  by  f'usebius  as 
of  the  Apocalypse,  Init  it  is  equally  closing  a  discussion  of  this  (juestion 
impossible  to  ignore  the  face  that  with  the  following  remarks:  "  We 
the  evanijelist  conceived  himself  in  may  also  notice  how  the  phraseolniry 
place  of  the  Apocalyi)tic  writer,  and  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  dilfers 
meant  to  use  the  weight  of  John's  from  the  Apocalypse.  l"nr  tlic 
name  for  the  purposes  of  his  gos-  former  are  written  not  only  irnp- 
pel,"  etc.  Eiinr,  (.'liurch  History,  i.  rehensibly  as  it  regards  tlu'(irrek 
154.  "  Whilst  a  strong  family  like-  language,  but  are  most  elegant  in 
neas  exists  between  the  epistles  [of  diction, and  inthewholestructuretif 
.loiin]  antl  the  gospel,  and  tliey  ex-  the  style.  It  would  require  mucli 
hil)it  close  analogies  both  in  thought  to  discover  any  barbarism  or  sole- 
and  lantruage,  the  Apocalypse,  on  cism,  or  any  odd  peculiarity  of  ex- 
the  contrary,  is  so  different  from  pression  at  all  in  them.  For,  as  is 
them  in  lanjruage,  in  style,  in  re-  to  be  presumed,  he  was  endued 
ligious  views  and  terminology,  that  with  all  tiie  requisites  for  Ins  dis- 
it  is  almo.st  impossible  to  believe  cour.se,  the  Lord  having  granted 
that  the  writer  of  the  one  could  be  him  both  that  of  knowleiige  and 
the  author  of  the  other."  Sup.  Ril.,  that  of  expression  and  style.  That 
ii.  ;!S().  "  We  think  it  must  heap-  the  latter,  however,  saw  a  revela- 
parent  to  every  uni)rejudiced  per-  tion,  and  received  knowledge  and 
son  that  the  .Vjxxalypse  singularly  prophecy.  I  do  not  deny.  Hut  I 
corresponds  in  every  respect-Ian-  jK'rceive  tiiat  his  dialect  and  lan- 
guage, construction  an<l  thouszht —  gua<;e  is  not  very  accural.'  (ireek; 
with  what  we  are  told  of  the  char-  but  that  he  uses  barbarous  idioms, 
acter  nf  the  apostle  John  by  the  and  in  some  places  solecisms  which 
.-<ynnptic  gospels  and  by  tradition,  it  is  now  unnecessary  to  select ;  for 
and  that  the  internal  eviilence.  neither  would  T  have  any  one  sup- 
therefore,  accords  witii  the  external  pose  that  lam  sayin^r  these  things 
in  attributing  the  ccmiposition  of  by  way  of  derision,  but  only  with 
the  -Vpoi-alypse  to  that  apostle."  the  view  to  point  out  the  great  dif- 
/''   ^0  1.  fereiii-.'    between    the    writiiii.'s    of 


154  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

one  of  the  singular  revolutions  which  cliaracterize  skeptical 
thought,  that  in  the  hands  of  modern  unbelievers  the  scales 
have  turned,  and  the  shafts  of  doubt  are  hurled  in  the  oppo- 
site direction.  In  reply  to  this  it  is  urged  by  those  who  be- 
lieve in  the  early  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  time  sufficient 
elapsed  between  that  date  (a.  d.  68)  and  the  date  of  the  Gos- 
pel (95-97)  to  allow  a  marked  improvement  in  the  author's 
use  of  the  Greek  language,  especially  as  he  spent  this  period 
of  his  life  among  a  cultivated  people  whose  native  tongue  was 
Greek.^  By  those  who  assign  to  the  Apocalypse  the  later 
date  (dQ)  and  allow  no  great  difference  of  time  between  it  and 
John's  other  writings,  it  is  answered,  that  the  Hebraisms  of 
the  former  are  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  book  is 
to  a  large  extent  a  reproduction  of  the  imagery  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophets,  and  that  it  therefore  of  necessity  assumed 
much  of  their  styk'."  Either  answer  suffices  to  show  that  the 
objection  furnishes  no  ade(iuale  reason  for  denying  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  Gospel. 
As  to  the         Modern  skeptics  admit  that   the   author  of  Acts  and  of  the 

cvi<lciicc 

lor  Actfi.      third    (lospel    was    tlie   same   person,'^   but    they   are    divided 

tliesc  men."     Ecdet^.   Hii^f.,  vii.  25.  Lee,  Introduction  to  Revelation,  Bible 

Dionysius  makes  other  remarks  on  Commentanj,  455. 

tlio    general    question    which    are  ''"It   is  generally    admitted,  al- 

echoed  by  modern  disputants.  though  not  altogether  without  ex- 

'  "Nor  is  it  difficult  to  see  that  in  ception,   that    the    author  of    the 

any  case  intercourse  with  a  Greek-  third    synoptic     Gospel    likewise 

speaking  people  would  in  a  short  composed  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

time  naturally  reduce  the  style  of  The  linguistic  and  other  peculiari- 

tlie  author  of  the  Apocalypse  to  that  ties  which  distinguished  the  Gof- 

ot  the  author  of  the  Gospel."  AVesI-  })el,  are  equally  prominent  in  the 

cott,  fiitroflurtlon  to  J()}m,]\xxv\.  Acts."     Sup.    RcL  iii.  32.      "There 

'•'"The    language  of  the  Apoca-  can  be  no  doubt  that  th«  Acts  of 

lypse,  in  fact,  is  more  akin  to  the  the  Apostles  were  written  by  the 

Hebrew  than    to  the  Greek,  and  author  of   the  third  Gospel,  and 

while  the  fourth  gospel  jjroceeds  in  form  a  continuation  of  that  work, 

propositions  of  the  usual  historical  It    is    not   necessary   to  stop  and 

and  narrative  character,  the  Apoca-  prove  this  proposition,  which  has 

lypse  is  occupied  witii  visions  and  never    been     seriously    conteste<l. 

imagery  corresponding  to  the  He-  The  jjreface  whicli  is  at  the  begin- 

hrew  diction  of  the  Old  Testament,  ning  of  each  w^rk,  the  dedication 

especially    to    its    prophetic    ami  of  both  to  Theophilus,  and  the  per- 

sacred    forms    of    speech."     Prof.  fe(;t  resemblance  of  style  and  ideas, 


>'KU    'IKsl  AMEN'l'  HOOKS.  lOO 

among  themselve.s  ou  the  4Ucstioii  whutlicr  that  author  waji 
Luke.  Souie  scholars  of  the  Tubingen  .sehool  deny  that  Luke 
had  auy  eonnectiou  with  the  authorship  ;  but  Baur  himself, 
while  denying  that  he  cojuposed  the  narrative  as  we  have  it 
su])posi'(l  that  he  left  memoranda  which  were  used  in  the  final 
composition.  Kenan,  on  tlif  contrary,  though  lie  unites  with 
the  rest  in  denying  that  the  book  is  true  to  history,  contends 
that  Luke  ib  eertainly  the  author  of  the  whole  book.'  The 
only  ground  on  which  it:?  geuuiueness  is  denied,  is  its  alleged 
untruthfulness.  It  is  held  that  it  was  written  for  the  purpose 
of  covering  up  an  unreconciled  hostility  between  Paul  and  the 
other  Apostles,  and  that  to  this  end  many  fiu'ts  were  distorted 
and  some  invented.  The  merits  of  this  allegation  will  be 
eonsidered  in  Part  Third  of  this  book  ;  but  even  if  it  is  true, 
it  has  no  m:iterial  bearing  on  the  (juestion  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  b(>hk  ;  for  on  the  rationalistic  hypothesis  which  denies 
inspiration,  Luke  may  as  well  be  charged  with  the  fraud,  as  a 
later  Christian  writer.  Whether  the  charge  is  true  or  false, 
then,  it  affords  no  ground  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  Acts. 

The  genuineness  of  the  p:pistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Ro-^°?r" 

"  1  10  Gala- 
iire  abumlant  (lomonstration  of  the  journey  of  the  Apostle,  from  the 
fact."  Kenan,  A/iosth's  13,  14.  liand  of  Luke,  may  have  formed 
'  "  .\  careful  study  of  the  con-  the  foundation  of  the  Acts.  *  ■•  * 
tents  of  tiie  Acts  can  not,  we  thnik,  In  such  passages  the  author  is 
leave  any  doul>t  that  tlie  work  very  willing  to  be  considered  as 
could  not  have  heen  written  by  one  per.son  with  Luke  ;  but  he 
any  corai)anion  or  intimate  friend  <lid  not  venture  to  declare  himself 
of  the  .\])()stle  Paul.  '  "'  It  in  the  character  of  Luke  as  the 
is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  a  writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
friend  or  com|)anion  could  have  for  he  was  well  aware  of  the  di tier- 
written  so  unhistoric  and  defective  ence  in  tlates.  and  could  not  so 
a  history  of  the  .\postle'8  life  and  completely  escape  from  his  own 
teaching.  The  Pauline  epistles  are  identity."  Haur,  Lifr  of  Paul,  i. 
nowhere  directly  referred  to,  but  12,  13.  Kenan,  after  allirming  and 
where  we  can  compare  the  narra-  arguing  that  the  author  <if  the  tiiird 
tive  and  representations  of  Acts  (Jospel  must  be  theautlu>r  of  Ads, 
with  the  sUUements of  the  Apostle,  clo.ses  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
I hey  are  strikingly  contradictory."  tion  by  saying:  "  We  believe,  then. 
Sup.  RcL  iii.  51.  "It  may  not  be  that  the  author  of  tlu- tii  rd  (ios|)el 
impossible  that  sk«'tches,  collec-  was  really  Luke,  the  disciple  of 
tions,  narratives,  clironicles,  es-  Paul."  A/wKflfx,  19. 
pecially  those  concerning  tlu'  last                             « 


15(1 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE 


tians,  Ro- 
mans, 
I.  Corinthi- 
aus,  II.  Cor 
inthians. 


1.  Tliessalo- 
iiians. 
II.TheBsa- 
loniaub. 


\ 


luausi,  and  of  both  of  those  t<>  the  Corinthian.'^  i.s  conceded,  as 
we  have  already  stated,  by  all  modern  ske})tic.s.'  There  is  no 
internal  evidence  in  conflict  with  that  which  we  have  presented 
in  Chapter  lY.,  not  even  in  the  estimation  of  the  most  de- 
.structive  critics  of  the  present  age,  except  with  reference  to 
the  hist  two  chapters  of  Romans  which  are  held  in  doubt  by 
some  of  them.^ 

The  gennineness  of  first  and  second  Thessah)nians,  the 
earliest  of  Paul's  writings,  and  probably  the  earliest  writings 
of  the  New  Testament,  was  never  questioned  until  recent 
times,  and  that  of  the  first  Epistle  was  not  assailed  until  the 
publication  of  Baur's  Life  of  Paul.''  This  author  bases  his  re- 
jection of  the  fir.«^t  Epistle  chiefly  on  the  following  grounds: 
First,  th:it  a  large  part  of  it  contains  nothing  that  the  Thessa- 
lonians  did  not  already  know,  being  an  extended  account  of 
their  conversion;  second,  that  it  contains  "  reminiscaiiccs"  of 
other  Epistles  known  to  have  been  written  at  a  later  date  than  is 
claimed  for  this;  third,  that  it  contains  ditfennit  and  later  views 
of  the  second  coming  of  Chri.st  (iv.  14-18)  than  are  expressed  in 
I.  Corinthians.  In  regard  to  the  second  Epistle,  he  holds  that 
it  borrows  its  idea  of  Anti-Christ  (ii.  1-8)  from  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  mu.st  therefore  be  later  than  that  book;  and  that 
the  caution  about  testing  the  genuineness  of  any  epi.'^tle  pur- 
porting to  come  from  him  by  the  .salutation  being  written  in 
his  own  hand  (ii.  2;  iii.  17)  implies  that  it  was  written  after 
many  other  of  his  epistles  in.stead  of  being  among  his  fir.st.' 


'  "Tlicre  has  never  been  the 
slighte.st  su.spicion  of  un-authen- 
ticity  f'a.st  on  these  four  epistles, 
and  tliey  hearsfj  incontestahly  the 
charaeter  of  Pauline  onjiinality, 
that  there  is  no  conceivable  ground 
for  the  as.sertion  of  critical  (loul)ts 
in  their  ciiee."  Banr,  Li/e  of  Paul, 
i.  i'4().  "  Epistle.s  unquestioned 
and  unquestionable  ;  namely,  tiie 
ejii.stle  to  the  (ialatians,  the  two 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the 
epi.stlc  t(»  tlif  HotnatiH.' iJcn.tn,  Lifi 
of  I'niU,  10.  0 


'  Baur,  Life  of  Paul,  i.  .S52-365; 
Sup.  HH  lii.  :530-3.3(i. 

•^"The  second  of  the  Ejiistles 
ha.s  already  been  attacked  l;y  eriti- 
eisni,  but  the  first  has  as  yet  ex- 
cited no  suspicions."     i.  85. 

*  "Tlie  chief  part  of  the  epistle 
is  nothinj^  but  a  lengthy  version  of 
the  history  of  the  convereion  of 
the  Thes.saloni-ans,  as  we  know  it 
from  Acts.  It  contains  notlung 
that  the  Thessalonians  would  not 
already  know,  and  the  author  may 
have    taken     Ins    ;i(c<iMiit    oi    the 


NEW  TKsTA.MKNT  HOOKS.  1  .j , 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  tlivsi'  objections  it  is  sufficient  to 
say,  that  it  is  common  with  Paul,  as  with  all  other  teachers,  tu 
remind  persons  of  what  they  know  when  giving  theyi  encour- 
agt'ment  and  exhortation.  In  regard  to  tlie  second,  it  is 
obviously  a  mere  assumption  to  say  that  the  ideas  and  words 
common  to  this  and  other  epistles  are  reminiscences  by  a  later 
writer,  when  they  may  have  been,  as  they  purport  to  be,  but 
repetitions  characteristic  of  the  same  writer;  and  that  while 
the  account  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  given  in  I.  Thessa- 
lonians  is  certainly  different  from  that  in  I.  Corinthians,  there 
is  no  ground  for  the  assertion  that  it  is  of  later  origin.  As  to 
the  conception  of  Anti-Christ,  it  is  begging  the  ([uestion  to 
>ay  that  it  originated  in  the  Apocalypse ;  for  it  certainly  may 
h:ive  originated  with  Paul.  As  to  the  autograph  salutation 
it  seems  that  one  or  more  letters  purporting  to  have  come 
from  Paul  had  actually  been  received  in  Thessalonica  (ii.  2), 
and  there  could  be  no  better  occasion  than  this  for  giving  the 
sign  by  which  all  of  his  genuine  letters  could  be  known. 
Renan  says  of  all  these  objections  that  they  are  "  without 
value;"  and  of  the  Anti-Christ,  that  this  idea  did  not  origi- 
nate with  the  Apocalypse,  for  it  was  current  at  a  much  earlier 
period.'      Thus  we  have  the  judgment  of  one  learned  Kation- 

transactioM  either  from  the  Acts  or  aim  and  character  of  the  whole 
from  some  other  source."  Life  of  writing,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Paul,  1.  So.  "In  addition  to  all  Apocalypse.  The  Apocalypse  is 
this,  we  find  in  the  narrative  renii-  the  earliest  writinjr  in  which  we 
niscenoes  more  or  less  distinct,  of  find  the  concrete  representation  of 
other  Pauline  epistles,  ])articnlarly  a  personal  Anti-Christ."  ]li.  .324. 
of  tliose  to  the  Corinthians."  Ih.  In  reference  to  the  autograph  salii- 
8(3.  "  It  is  .scarcely  prohaljle  that  tation,  he  says  :  "  Are  we  to  snp- 
an  author  who  expresses  his  views  pose  that,  at  the  time  when  the 
of  the  last  things  with  such  caution  Apo.stle  had  written  hardly  any 
and  reserve,  as  in  I.  Cor.  15, should,  epistles  at  all,  pretended  Pauline 
in  a  writing  of  earlier  date,  have  ones  had  already  made  their  ap- 
entereil  into  the  (piestion  so  fully  pearance,  whieh  called  for  caution 
and  given  evidence  of  a  belief  en-  in  discriminating,  such  as  is  here 
tirely  preoccupied  with  Rabbinical  given  (ii.  2),  or  could  he  foresee  so 
opinions."  lb.  91.  "  There  can  be  distinctly,  even  so  early  a.s.this,  that 
no  doubt,  when  we  conBi<ler  it,  he  would  have  a  large  correspond- 
that  the  key  to  the  chief  passage  of  enre  afterward?  "  76.  M. 
the  epistle,  and  therefore   to    the  '"Not    the   slightest   doubt  has 


158  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

alist  against  that  of  another  in  regard  to  these  objections,  while 
the  objections  are  in  themselves  so  trivial  as  to  scarcely  deserve 
serious  att;ention. 
Kphesians.  Xhc  three  Epistles,  Ephesians,  Colossians  and  Philemon, 
PhiieLoB*'  may  be  considered  together,  both  because  they  all  purport  to 
have  been  written  at  one  time,  and  to  have  been  carried  to 
their  destination  by  two  messengers  traveling  together;*  and 
because  the  former  two  are  assailed  on  common  grounds.  The 
principal  ground  on  which  Baur  rejects  these  two  is,  that  they 
appear  to  him  to  contain  the  doctrine  of  Gnosticism,  a  heresy 
■which  came  into  existence  after  the  death  of  Paul.^  Renan 
finds  echoes  of  the  same  doctrine  in  them,  yet  he  admits  the 
genuineness  of   Colossians.^      The    charge   of   Gnosticism  is 

been   raised   by    serious    criticism  The  reign  of   Caligula   began  a.  d. 

against    the    authenticity    of    the  37. 

epistle  to  the   Galatians,  the   two        '  Tychicus    bore    the   epistles   to 

epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  or  the  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians  (Eph. 

epistle  to  the  Romans;  while  the  vi.  21,22;  Col.  iv.  7,8);  Onesimus 

arguments  on  which  are  founded  accompanied  him  (Col.  iv.  9),  bear- 

*  the  attacks  on  the  two  epistles  to  ing  tiie  note  to  Philemon  (Phil.  11, 

the  Thessalonians  and  that  to  the  12) ;  and  all  were  written  while  the 

Philippians    are    without    value."  writer  was  in  prison   (Eph.  iii.  1 ; 

Apoi^tle.<,   35.      "The    only  serious  iv.  1 ;  Col.  iv.  10,  18  ;  Phil.  i). 
difhculty   which  has    been    raised       *  "The  numerous  echoes  of  (inos- 

against  the  epistles  to  the  Thessa-  ticism    and    its    peculiar    doctrines 

lonians  results  from  the  theory  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  three 

the  Anti-Christ  expounded  in  the  epistles    to  the    Ei)hesians,   Colo.s- 

Becond     chapter    of     the    second  sians  and  Philippians,  are  stifllcient, 

epistle,  a  theory  apparently  identi-  had  we  no  other  ground  to  go  upon, 

cal  with  that  of    the   Apocalypse,  to  fix  the  position  of  these  works 

and     which     would    consp(juently  in  the  post-apostolic  age."     Church 

lead  us  to  suppose  that  Nero  was  Histori/,  \.  127.     See  al.so  ii.  ()-31. 
already  dead  when  th('  piece  was       ^  "  The   epistle  to  the  Colossians 

written.      H\it   this   objection   per-  has   been   subjected  to  the  test  of 

mits  itself  to  be   overcome,  as  we  mucli  graver  objections.     Certain  it 

shall  see  in  the  present  volume.  The  is  that  expres.sions  made  use  of  in 

author  of  the  Apocalypse  did  noth-  this  epistle  to  designate  the  role  of 

ing  more  than  apply  to  his  day  a  Jesus  in  the  bosom  of  the  Divinity, 

collection    of     ideas,    one     part    of  as  Creator  and  prototype  of  all  cre- 

which  fl.'ited  back  to  the  very  sour-  ation    fi.    15),    show    very    plainly 

ces  of   the  Chri.Ktian    belief,   while  aVrngside  the  language    of    certain 

the    other  was   introduced    toward  epistles,  and  ap])ear   to    favor    the 

the   time   of    Caligiila."     Paul,   11.  style  of  the  writings  attributed  to 


m;>\  testament  iiuoKs.  159 

based  upiin  statements  concerninf;  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and 
tlio  rank.-?  and  orders  of  angelic  beings,  which  these  epis- 
tles contain.  Eph.  i.  20-23;  iii.  «-12;  vi.  11,  12;  Col.  i.  IS- 
IS. iJut  these  conceptions  can  be  regarded  as  unapostolic 
only  by  men  who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  reject  the 
revelations  in  Scripture  concerning  the  spirit  world.  To  a 
mind  not  thus  prepossessed  the  (objection  has  no  force.  A 
.-«peeial  objection  to  Ephesians  is  based  on  its  similarity  to  Co- 
lossians.'     These    writers   are  not  willing   to   admit  that  Paul ''^p^'"''*^ 

.  .  ^  jections  to 

could  write  two  epistles  near  the  same  time  .so  nearly  alike  ;  KpiirMans; 
and  yet  Renan  suggests  that  Ephesians  may  have  been  writ- 
ten by  one  of  Paul's  companions  while  his  mind  was  preoccu- 
pied with  the  words  and  thoughts  of  Colossians.  If  one  of 
these  might  do  it,  why  not  Paul  himself?  It  is  a  common 
experience  of  letter  writers,  when  writing  several  letters  to 
different  persons  at  one  sitting,  to  use  in  all  of  them  much  of 
the  same  matter;  and  why  may  not  Paul  have  done  the  same, 
especially  as  these  two  churches  were  located  in  the  same 
country  and  were  exposed  to  similar  dangers?^  Another  ob- 
jection to  the  genuineness  of  Ephesians  is  based  upon  the  fact 
that  the   persons  addressed  were  strangers^to  the  writer,  and 

John.  In  reading  .such  passages  we  words  of  Renan  are  ahuost  a  copy 
imagine  ourselves  in  complete  from  Baur's  Lite  of  Paul,  ii.  2. 
<;nosticism.  *  Nothing  in  De  Wette,  a  German  scholar  who 
;ill  tliis,  however,  is  decisive.  If  died  1849,  was  the  fir.st  tu  deny  the 
the  epistle  to  the  Colo.ssians  is  the  genuinene.ss  of  this  Kpistle. 
work  of  Panl  (as  we  helii-ve  it  to  -"The  resemblance  of  this  gen- 
he),  it  was  written  in  the  latter  part  era)  epistle  [Ephesians]  to  the  Co- 
of  the  Apostle's  life,  at  a  period  in  lossians  might  have  resulted  either 
which  his  biography  is  very  oh-  from  tiie  fact  of  one  man's  writing 
.senre."  Paul,  11,  12.  several  letters  in  a  few  days,  and 
'  "  As  soon  as  \vo  admit  the  through  preoccupation  with  a  cer- 
fpistle  to  the  Colo.'^sians  to  be  a  tain  number  of  fixed  ideas  uncon- 
work  of  Paul's,  the  question  puts  scions^ly  falHng  into  the  siune  ex- 
itself  as  follows:— How  could  Panl  pressions;  or  from  the  circumstance 
pas.s  his  time  in  disfiguring  one  of  of  Paul's  dirtictlng  Timothy  or 
his  works,  in  repeating  him.self,  in  Tychieus  to  compose  the  circiUar 
making  a  conunon  letter -out  of  a  letter  after  the  model  of  tlie  epistle 
topical  and  particiilar  one?  This  to  the  Colossians,  but  with  there- 
is  not  exactly  impos.sible,  but  it  is  jection  of  everything  of  a  topical 
quite  improbable."   Pdiil,  17.  These  nature."     lb.  18. 


moil 


1 60  a  i:  Ml  N  J-:  n  kss  ( »  i-  ri  i  k 

their  faith  a  matter  of  hearsay ;  whereas  Paul  planted  the 
church  ill  Ephesus  and  lived  three  years  in  the  midst  of  it. 
If  it  were  certain  that  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church 
at  Ephesus,  this  objection  would  have  more  force  than  either 
of  the  preceding  (Eph.  i.  15;  iv.  20,  21);  yet  even  in  that 
ease  it  would  appear  very  strange  that  a  forger,  at  a  later 
date,  should  represent  the  Apostle  as  being  a  stranger  to 
that  church.  But  although  this  objection  is  urged  with  vehe- 
mence by  Rationalists,  they  admit,  what  is  well  known,  that 
the  words  "  at  Ephesus  "  in  the  salutation  of  the  epistle  are  of 
doubtful  genuineness,  and  that  many  scholars  both  ancient 
and  modern  have  held  that  the  E])istle  was  addressed  to  no 
particular  church,  or  if  to  any,  to  that  at  Laodicea.'  Cornp. 
Col.  iv.  16. 
lopiiiie-  Of  the  epistle  to  Philemon,  Renan  remarks,  "Paul  alone, 

as  far  as  it  appears,  was  able  to  write  this  little  masterpiece."  ^ 
Yet  Baur  rejects  it  on  the  singular  ground  that  the  story  of 

'  "  In  addition  to  these  considera-  ford   a    presumption     against    the 

tions  regarding  the  external  form  of  PauUne    origin    of    the     epistle.  '' 

the  epistle.  \vu  have  further  to  con-  Baur,  Paul,  ii.  5,  G.     The  presump- 

sider  that  if    it   was    actually    ad-  lion  last  spoken  of  in  the  extract  is 

<lressed  to  the  Epliesians,  it  can  not  not    ai)parent;    for    certainly  Paul 

})<issil)ly  have  been  written  l)y  Paul;  may  have  written  an  epistle  intend- 

Tliey  were  a  church  in  the  midst  of  ed  as  a  kind  of  circular  address  to 

wliich  he  had  lived  for  a  consider-  several  churches  and  \\  ithout  a  local 

able  time,  and  with  which  he  was  address. 

intimately  acquainted;  and  how  Kenan,  while  denying  the  genu- 
could  he  write  to  them  as  to  a  ineness  of  the  Epistle  has  this  to 
church  that  was  .strange  to  him,  and  say  about  its  destination:  "The 
speak  of  their  faith  as  a  thing  he  perusal  of  the  .so-called  epistle  to 
had  learned  alxnit  through  others."  the  fiphesians  will  therefore  be  suf- 
Comp.  i.  15.  The  title  and  addrc.-s  ficient  to  lead  us  to  suspect  that  the 
whicli  are  found  in  the  text  (i.  1)  writing  in  question  was  not  ad- 
are  doubtful ;  but  even  in  the  case  dressed  to  the  church  of  Ephesus. 
that  the  epistle  was  not  an  epistU;  The  testimony  of  the  MSS.  t-ans- 
to  the  Ephesians,  even  though  the  forms  these  susyjc-ions  into  certain- 
local  address  weix-  wanting  alto-  ty."  Paul,  14,  lo.  T'or  the  testi- 
gether,  or  ran  thus:  "  Tu  the  Lao-  mony  of  the  MSS. and  other  an<'ient 
diceans,"  tbis  indistinctness  and  df>cumPnts,  .see  the  notes  of  Ti.sch- 
uncertaiuty  of  the  destination  endorf,  Tregelles,  or  Westcott  and 
(which  even  in  the  last  case  is  nf)t  Ilort  m  loco. 
removed)   would  of  thera.selves  af-  M^ife  of  Paul,  V.i. 


NKW  TKSTAMKNT   HOOK8.  Itll 

Onesimus  involved  in  its  allusiuns,  lias  the  air  of  a  romance.' 
The  story  is  eerlainly  an  interesting  one,  hut  none  of  its  inci- 
dents are  at  all  improhable,  unless  a  selfish  age  like  ours  should 
so  regard  the  wonderful  generosity  manifested  in  the  case  l)y 
Paul. 

]iaur  claims  the  credit  of  being  the  first  author  to  raise  a Phiiipi'ian 
douht  concerning  the  genuineness  of  tlic  cpi.-^flc  t(»  tlu'  Philip- 
pians.^  He  bases  his  doubt,  first,  on  the  Gnostic  ideas  and 
expressions  which  he  claims  to  find  in  it  ;  especially  in  ii.  <)  ; 
second,  on  the  want  of  a  motive  or  occasion  fi)r  writing  it; 
and  third,  on  the  assumed  incredibility  of  its  assertions  con- 
cerning the  effects  of  Paul's  preaching  on  the  Praetorian 
guard  and  on  Caesar's  household.'     Phil.  i.  12;  iv.  22.     The 

'After    stilting    the    tacts   which  '"Theeritic  who  lirst  ventured 

make  up  the  story  of    Onesimus,  to  cast  doubt  ou  the  genuineness  of 

Baur  says:      "This   is  a   very    re-  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  [De 

markable  (••im-urreuce  of   chances,  Wette]  has  lately  asserted  of   the 

such  as  ninly  indeed  takes  jtlace."  Epistle  to  the  Philippiaus  that  its 

And  agam  he  says:     "Thus  it  can  genuineness  is  above  all  question, 

not  be  called  either  an  impossible  It  is  true  tliat  no  suflicient  reasons 

or  an   improbable   coustruction   of  have  been  alleged  as  yet  for  d(Mibt- 

this  Epistle,  if    we   rt'gard   it   as  a  ing  its  apostolic  origin;  yet  I  think 

Christian   romance  serving  to  con-  there  are  such  reasons,  and  I  deen\ 

vey    a    genuine     Chri-stian    idea."  it  necessary  to  state  shortly  for  the 

Ijife  of  Paul,  ii.  82,  84.      So  acute  a  further  consideration   of   criticism, 

writer  could  scarcely  feel  satislied  what  they  are."     lb.  ii.  45. 

with  such  an  effort,  and  he  betrays  '  "  This  Epistle,  like  the  two  we 

his  anticipation  of  wliat  the  learned  have    just    discussed,    is    occupied 

world  would  tliink  of  it  1)y  the  fol-  with  Gnostic  ideas  and  expressions, 

lowing  reflections:      ''In  the   case  and  that  not  in  the  way  of  contro- 

of  this  Epistle,  more  than  any  other.  ver.sy  with  (ino.stics,  but  employing 

if  criticism  .sliould  inquire  for  evi-  them,  with  the  necessary  modilica- 

dence  in  favor  of  its  a])ostolic  name,  tions,  for  its  own  purposes.    The 

it  seems  liable  to  the  reproach  of  ))assage  ii.  (i,  one  of  great  import- 

hypercriticism,  of  exaggerated  sus-  ance  for  dogmatics,  and  of  as  great 

picion  and  restless  doubt,  from  tin-  dilHculty,  can  scarcely  l)e  exjilained 

attacks  of  which   nothing    is    saf(>.  savi-    on  the  supi>osition    that   the 

What  has  criticism   to  do  with  this  writi-r's  mind  was  (ille«l  with  cer- 

■short,      attractive,      graceful      and  tain   (Gnostic  ideas   current  at  the 

friendly  letter,  inspircl  as  ii   is  by  time."     (J^).  4o,  46).     "Connected 

the  noblest  Chn.stian   feehng.  and  with    this   there    is    another    con- 

which   has  never  yet  Ijeen  touched  sideration    which    must    count    a.s 

by  the  breath  of  suspicion  ■'  '    M.  So.  an  important  element  ni  judging  oi 


lt)'i  GENUINENESS  ()F  THE 

first  of  these  objections  has  ln;en  answered  in  answering  the 
■same  when  arrayed  against  Ephesians  and  Colossians  (page 
158);  the  second  is  contradicted  by  the  epistle  itself,  for  an 
occasion  is  indicated  in  ii.  19-28,  and  a  motive  in  the  exhor- 
tations with  which  it  abounds;  and  the  third  evinces  a  most 
unreasonable  incredulity  ;  for  Paul  was  guarded  night  and 
day  for  two  whole  years  by  different  soldiers  of  that  guard 
who  heard  all  that  he  said  to  his  many  visitors,  and  it  would 
be  strange  indeed  if  he  failed  to  leaven  them  and  tli rough 
them  their  comrades,  and  even  some  of  the  multitudinous  at- 
tendants on  the  Emperor's  palace,  with  the  doctrine  which  he 
was  incessantly  preaching.  Even  Renan  places  this  epistle 
among  those  that  are  "  certain  ;  "  '  and  Farrar  expresses  the 
common  judgment,  of  critics  when  he  says,  "This  epistle  is 
genuine  beyond  the  faintest  suspicion   or  shadow  of  doubt."" 

the  Epistle,  riz.,  that  we  find  no  commanded  in  tlie  whole  Pnf tori- 
motive  nor  occasion  for  it,  no  dis-  um,  and  in  Rome  generally,  is  sup- 
tinct  indication  of  any  purpose,  or  posed,  as  we  see  from  iv.  22,  to  have 
of  any  leading  idea."  {lb.  52).  had  for  one  of  its  consequences 
"  We  have  still  to  consider  what  is  that  there  were  believers  even  in 
said  in  chap.  1.  12,  both  about  the  the  imperial  household."  lb.  o9. 
progress  of  the  gospel  in  Rome,  '  In  his  classification  of  the 
and  of  the  deep  impression  wliicli  Epistles  credited  to  Paul  with  refcr- 
the  captivity  of  the  Apostle  and  ence  to  their  genuinpnos^,  he  has 
his  preaching  of  the  Gospel  are  the  following:  "Second.  Certain 
said  to "^lave  produced  in  the  whole  Epistles,  to  which,  however,  ob- 
Prajtorium  and  throughout  the  jections  have  been  raised,  namely, 
city.  This  statement  stands  qnite  the  two  to  the  Thessalonians  and 
alone  and  unsupported ;  it  is  not  the  Epistle  to  the  Philii)pians." 
corroborated  either  by  the  Epistles  Li/r  of  Pmtl,  10. 
which  i>rofcss  to  have  been  written  ''  Farrar,  Life  and  Work  of  Paul 
from  the  Apostle's  captivity  in  c.  xlvi.  In  the  same  connection 
Home,  or  from  any  other  quarter,  this  author  very  justly  satirizes  ttie 
Yet  the  fact  is  not  in  itself  incredi-  critics  of  the  Tiibingen  schonl  in 
ble,  and  no  one  would  have  thf)Ught  the  followingtcrms  :  "  With  these 
of  calling  it  in  question  had  not  the  critics,  if  an  Epistle  touches  on 
author  hitnself  taken  up  into  his  jjoints  whieli  make  it  accord  with 
Epistle  another  fact  which  gives  tis  the  narrative  of  tlie  Acts,  it  was 
so  clear  an  insight  into  his  plot,  forged  to  suit  them;  if  it  seems  to 
that  it  is  impossible  for  ns  to  fake  disagree  with  them,  the  discrepancy 
his  assertions  as  simple  history,  shows  that  it  was  spnrions.  If  the 
The    attention    which    the    Gospel  fliction  is  Pauline,  it  stands  forth 


NEW  TESTAMENT   HOOKS.  163 

The  epistles  to  Timothv  and  Titus  remained   undisputed'.*"''" 

^  '  ....         Timothy. 

until  the  present  eentury,  and  now  thtir  genuineness  is  im-nud  Tituv. 
pugned  only  on  internal  grounds.  It  is  said :  First,  that 
they  ar(f  tinged  with  Gnosticism,  which  originated  after  Paul'.s 
death ;  second,  that  they  indicate  a  stage  of  progress  in  the 
organization  of  the  church  which  was  not  attained  during 
PauTs  life ;  and  third,  that  there  is  no  place  in  Paul's  career 
for  the  journeys  and  incidents  to  which  they  allude.'  Other 
objections  of  less  importance  are  urged,  hut  by  these  three  the 
question  is  to  be  settled. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  false  teachings  against  which  Timo-^"s"er  to 
thy  and  Titus  were  warned  (I.  Tim.  i.  1-7;  vi.  20,  21;  Titus jectioti: 
i.  13-lG;  iii.  9-11)  were  in  part  of  the  same  nature  as  Gnosti- 
cism, but  it  is  a  baseless  assumption  to  affirm  that  no  such 
teaching  was  introduced  before  the  death  of  Paul.  The  her- 
etical ideas  had  not  been  systematized  as  they  were  afterward, 
but  such  ideas  always  exist  in  a  nebulous  form  before  they  are 
reduced  to  a  system.  That  they  are  noticed  in  these  epistles, 
and  alluded  to  in  the  earlier  epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  the 
Colossians  and  the  Pliilipj)ians,  instead  of  throwing  doubt  on 
the  genuineness  of  these  documents,  simply  proves  that  these 
ideas  were  propagated  at  this  early  dale. 

That  a  more  advanced  organization  of  the  church  is  indi-'" '*'^'''"'^' 
cated  in  these  epistles  than  existed  before  Paul's  death,  is  an- 
as a  proved  imitation;  if  it  is  un-   stitutions    of    the    church.      This 
Paulino,   it   cr.nUl    not    have    pro-    f^econd  point  is  intimately  counect- 
ceeded  from  the  Apostle."  ci\   "it'i   H»p   first.     The  (inostios, 

'"I  was  the  first  to  a.'^sert.  and  as  the  first  heretics  properly  so 
to  give  evidence  for  the  assertion,  called,  jirave  the  first  occasion  for 
that  in  these  heretics  [those  com-  the  Episcopal  constitution  of  the 
hatted  in  the  Epistles]  we  recofmizo  church."  Ih.  102.  "A  further 
thron-rhont  the  familiar  featiires  of  i>oint  in  the  criticism  of  the  Pns- 
Gnosticism  ;  and  nothinjr  of  im-  toral  Epistles  is  that  it  is  impossi- 
portance  has  since  heen  nrjred  hie  to  find  a  snitahle  place  for  the 
against  this  view."  Banr,  Ufe  of  composition  of  them  in  the  Apos- 
Pau!,  V.  99.  "  A  second  point  in  tie's  history  as  we  know  it."  /'>. 
the  criticism  of  the  Pastoral  Epis-  10:^  Kenan  employs  the  same  ar- 
tles,  and  one  of  no  less  import-  prnments,  and  dwells  with  especial 
ance  than  that  just  spoken  of,  is  earnestness  upon  the  Inst.  T.ifr  nf 
the  reference  they  contain  to  the  Paul,  12-32. 
government  and    the    external   in- 


164  (JKNT'INKNESS  OF    Till: 

other  baseless  assumption,  and  one  that  can  be  made  oidy  by 
those  who  deny  tlie  credibility  of  Acts  of  Ajiostles:  for  the 
organization  of  chnrclies  by  the  appointment  of  elders  or 
bishops,  and  deacons,  the  only  organization  alluded  to  in  these 
epistles,  had  existed  in  Judea  before  the  beginning  of  Paul's 
missionary  tours,  and  Paul  himself  thus  organized  the  churches 
which  he  planted  among  the  Gentiles.' 
tothethirfi.  --pi^j,  third  objection  is  the  only  one  of  the  three  which  has 
any  real  force,  and  should  it  be  decided  that  Paul's  life  ter- 
minated with  his  first  Roman  imprisonment  described  at  the 
close  of  Acts,  its  force  would  be  almost  if  not  altogether  irre- 
sistible. The  following  journeys  and  incidents  can  find  no 
place  ill  his  previous  life,  though  many  ingenious  scholars 
have  sought  one,  viz:  his  departui-e  from  P^phesus  for  Mace- 
donia, leaving  Timothy  behind  him  (I.  Tim,  i.  3);  his  labors 
in  Crete  where  he  left  Titus  (Titus  i.  5);  his  wintering  in 
Nicopolis  where  he  desired  Titus  to  join  him  (iii.  12);  and  his 
journeying  through  Miletus  where  Trophimus  was  left  sick, 
and  through  Corinth  where  he  left  Erastus  (II.  Tim.  iv.  20).^ 
But  this  argument  has  force  against  the  genuineness  of  these 
Epistles  only  on  the  supposition  that  Paid  was  not  released 
from  his  first  imprisoiiment  in  Rome.  Tliis  supposition  is 
adopted  by  those  who  reject  the  Epistles  as  if  it  were'a  settled 
fact;  whereas  there  is  positive  and  uncontradicted  testiraonv 
that   he  was  released,  that  he  performed  other  labors  during 

'  .Vets  vi.  1-fi;    xi.  30;     xiv.  23;  others  to  prove    that    tlicy  might 

XX.  17,  28;  xxi.18;   Phil.  i.  1.  have  been  written  duriu};  any  part 

-  The  various  scheme.n  suggested  of  the  period  eov(!rrd])y  tlie  narra- 

by  German  writers  to  find  a  place  tive    of     Acts  — during   the   three 

for  the.se  events  within  the  period  years' stay  at  Ephesus,  for  instance, 

covered  by  Ac^ts  are  mentioned  by  or  tlip  st.iy  of  eighteen  ninnths  at 

Renan  in  the  course  of  Ids  sncce'^n-  Corinth      sink  to  the  ground  not 

fnl    refutation    of    them.      Life    of  only  under  tlie  weight  of  tlioir  own 

Pou/,  22-30.      Farrar  can  HOarccly  arbitrary  hypothes'-s,  but  even  mrtre 

be  said  to  be  too  emphatic  when  he  from  the  state  both  of  the  church 

says:     "If,   indeed,  St.   Paul    was  and  of  the  mind  and  circumstances 

never  liberated  from  his  first  Ilo-  of  the  Apostle  which  these  letters 

man  imprisonment,  then  the  Pas-  so  definitely   manifest."       lAfe     oj 

toral    Epi.stles  must    be    forgeries;  Pa"/,  c.  Iv. 
for  the  attempts  of   Wieselrr  and 


NEW  TESTA -M KM'  BOOKS.  165 

the  interval  of  freedom,  and  that  he  was  imprisoned  a  second 
time  before  his  death.  Clement  of  Rome  declares  that  after 
he  had  been  seven  times  in  bonds,  he  reached  in  his  preaching 
"the  boundary  of  the  West,'' '  an  expression  then  jised  for  the 
western  boundary  of  Spain.  If  Clement  uses  it  in  this  sense, 
and  not,  as  some  suppose,  for  Rome  (a  very  unnatural  mean- 
ing for  one  living  in  Rome),  we  have  in  his  statement  the^  tes- 
timony of  a  competent  witness  implying  Paul's  release  and  the 
fulfillment  of  a  cherished  purpose  to  visit  Spain."  The  Mura- 
torian  Canon,  written  al)out  A.  D.  170,  also  speaks  of  Paul's 
departure  from  the  city  into  Spain  as  a  well  Unown  fact;''  and 
Eusebins,  who  had  searched  carefully  into  the  early  history  of 
the  church,  says  that  his  martyrdom  did  not  take  place  at  the 
time  of  hi>  first  imprisonment,  but  that  he  was  released,  went 
again  upon  his  ministry,  and  at  a  second  visit  to  the  city  was 
put  to  deatli.'     AMiile  the  first  of  these  testimonies  is  indeci- 

'  "By  reason  of  jealousy  and  of  Paul,  438.  "Luke  relates  to 
strife,  Paul,  by  his  example,  pointed  Theoi>hilus  events  of  whicli  he 
out  the  i)rizo  of  patient  endurance,  was  an  eye-witness,  as  also,  in  a 
.\fter  that  lu' had  been  St' ven  times  separate  place  lie  evidently  de- 
in  bonds,  had  been  driven  into  clarosthe  martyrdom  of  Peter,  but 
exile,  had  been  stoned,  had  [omits]  the  journey  of  Paul  from 
preached  in  the  East  and  in  the  Rome  to  Spain."  Westcott  would 
"West,  he  won  the  noble  renown  inse-rt  the  wor<l  "omits  "  before  the 
which  was  the  reward  of  his  faith,  words  "martyrdom  of  Peter."  Can- 
having  taiight  righteousness  to  the  on  of  Nov  TcMameiit,  214. 
whole  woild,  and  having  reached  *"And  here  Luke,  who  wrote 
tiie  bountlary  of  the  West  ;  and  the  Acts  of  the  .\postles,  after 
wi)en  he  had  borne  his  testimony  showing  that  Paul  passed  two 
before  the  rulers,  so  he  departed  whole  years  at  Rome  as  a  prisoner 
from  the  world  and  went  into  the  at  large,  and  that  he  preaciied  the 
holy  place,  having  been  found  a  Gospel  without  restraint,  brings 
notable  pattern  of  patient  endur-  his  history  to  a  close,  .\fter  plead- 
ance."  Epistle  of  Clement,  c.  v.  ing  Ids  cause,  he  is  said  to  have 
Lightfoot'K  Trnndntion.  been  .sent  again  u|)on  the  ministry 

"  Romans  xv.  28.  of    preaching,  and   after  a  second 

'  The  pa.ssage  concerning  Acts  is  vi.sit  to  the  city,  that  he  finished 
defective  in  the  ^L^.,  but  llu' words  his  life  with  martyrdom.  *  •  * 
on  which  the  evidence  turns  are  Tlius  much  we  have  said,  to  show 
not.  The  original  document  may  that  the  martyrdom  of  the  Apostle 
be  found  in  Westcott  on  the  Canon,  did  nut  take  place  at  that  period  of 
appendix  C.  It  is  thus  translated  his  stay  at  Rome,  when  Luke  wrote 
by  Dean  Howson,  Life  an<l  Epistles    liis  history.'     RrrI,-!'.    IHnT.  r.   xxii. 


166  GEXUINENESS  OF  THE 

sive,  and  while  it  is  possible  that  in  the  second  there  may  be  a 
mistake  as  to  the  country  to  which  Paul  departed,  it  is  scarcely 
possible  that  they  should  all  be  in  error  as  to  the  fact  of  his 
release.  By  the  side  of  this  testimony  we  have  that  of  these 
three  epistles,  all  well  attested  by  external  evidence,  and  all 
implying  journeys  and  incidents  of  a  later  date  than  the  first 
imprisonment.  The  conclusion,  then,  instead  of  being  adverse 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles,  is  in  favor  of  the  supposition 
that  the  events  implied  in  them  occurred  after  the  author's 
first  imprisonment.  Were  it  Christopher  Columbus  instead  of 
Paul,  the  date  of  whose  death  is  in  dispute,  and  should  we 
find  well  authenticated  letters  purporting  to  be  his,  alluding 
to  journeys  and  labors  which  can  not  have  transpired  before 
the  supposed  date  of  his  death,  who  would  hesitate  to  decide 
that  the  date  which  has  been  received  is  erroneous,  and  that  in 
these  letters  we  have  an  additional  chapter  of  his  life?  This 
is  the  conclusion  in  the  present  instance  that  has  been  reached 
by  many  of  the  abk'st  critics  of  the  present  age,  not  including 
those  of  the  llationalistic  school.^  There  is  only  one  seeming 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  conclusion,  and  this  is  the  conflict 
which  it  involves  betw'cen  the  return  of  Paul  to  Kphesus  (I. 
Tim.  i.  3)  and  the  saying  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  elders,  "  I 
know  that  ye  all,  among  whom  I  went  about  preaching  the 
kingdom,  shall  see  my  face  no  more  "  (Acts  xx.  25).  But 
the  context  shows  that  whatever  positive  knowledge  of  his 
own  future  he  enjoyed  at  that  time  was  through  the  prophetic 
f  )rosight  of  others,  not  his  own — and  indeed  neither  he  nor 
any  of  the  apostles  claimed  to  know  their  <»wn  future  l)y  their 
prophetic  powers.  This  remark,  therefore,  can  be  regarded 
only  a.s  a  strong  statement  of  his  conviction  based  on  the  pre- 
dicted bonds  and  afflictions  awaiting  him  at  Jerusalem.  Neither 
is  this  conclusion  an  afterthought,  as  is  charged  by  Kenan,* 

'  Among  these  we  may  mention  the  part    of    a    <  riininal,   who,  in 

Alford,  Ilowson  and    Fiirrar,  and  order  to  meet  objt'ctions  is   forced 

the    writers  on   these   Epistles  in  to    imagine    an    fnneynhlr   (if    facts 

Langf's  Commentary    and   in   the  which    iiave    no    connection  with 

Bible  Commentary.  anything   known.      These  isolated 

'  "All  this,  it  must  be  confessed,  liypotheses,  defenceless  and  discon^ 

resemble  an  artificial  defence  on  nected  from  all  precedents,  are,  in 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  167 

gotten  up  to  meet  the  objection;  for  although  it  was  doubtless 
the  objection  which  led  to  tlie  investigation,  the  result  reached 
is  self-consistent  and  commends  itself  to  acccptaiu-c  independ- 
ently of  the  objection.  It  adds  a  most  thrillingly  interesting' 
chapter  to  the  biography  of  Paul,  one  that  throws  a  halo  of  in- 
tenser  glory  over  the  sunset  of  a  glorious  life. 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  Hebrews  refers  not  so  Hebrews. 
much  to  its  Pauline  authorship  as  to  its  authorsiiip  by  some 
apostolic  man  :  for,  as  we  have  before  stated  (p.  119),  its  author- 
ship has  been  in  dispute  from  a  very  early  period  even  among 
those  who  have  accepted  it  as  genuine  Scripture.  The  argu- 
ments from  internal  evidence  which  ha\  e  been  arrayed  against 
its  Pauline  origin  are  more  numerous  than  forcible.  They 
are  based  partly  on  the  style,  which  is  said  to  be  materially 
different  from  that  of  Paul's  undisputed  epistles,  and  partly 
on  statements  which  it  is  said  Paul  could  not  have  made.  In 
regard  to  the  former,  the  sj)ecifications  of  which  are  too  numer- 
ous and  minute  for  discussion  here,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
the  departures  from  Paul's  usual  style  which  are  found  in  the 
epistle  are  not  more  numerous  than  are  the  -words  and  forms 
of  expression  which  are  j)eculiar  to  Paul,  so  that  the  latter 
serve  as  an  offset  to  the  former,  and  take  away  the  force  of  the 
objection.*     As  to  statements  which  Paul  could  not  have  made, 

the  law,  a  sign  of  guilt,  in  criticism  in  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the 

the  sign  of  apocryphal."     Paul  31.  NewTestanient  and  in  Farrar'sEar- - 

Contrary  to  his  usual   custom    M.  ly  Days;c.  xvii.   Farrar  enumi'rates 

Kenan    here    in<lulges    in     strong  ten  facts  by  which  to  identify  the 

words    while    his     arguments    are  author ;  but  all  of  them  except  the 

proportionately  weak.  one   mentioned    above,   so   far  as 

'  The  crowning  act  of  this  inim-  they  are  facts  and  not  inferences, 

itable  story  is  set  forth  by  Farrar  agree  fully  as  well  with  the  suppo- 

(Life  -of  Paul,  c.  55)  with  an  elo-  sition  of  a  Pauline  authorship  as 

quence   which    has    seldom    been  of  any  other.    They  are  these : 
equaled.  "  1.  The  writer  was  a  .lew,  for  he 

'The  reader  will  find  the  argu-  writes  as  though  heathendom  were 
ments  on  this  ground  in  the  Intro-  practically  n()n-exi«*tent.  2.  lie  was 
duction  to  this  Epistle  in  Lam:e's  a  Hellenist.for  he  exclusively  quotes 
CommenUiry,  and  those  on  the  op-  the  Septuagint  version,  even  where 
posite  siile  in  the  corresponding  it  diverges  from  the  original  He- 
place  in  the  Bible  Commentary,  brew.  3.  He  had  been  subjected 
The    question     is    also    discussed  to   Alexandrian   training;    for  he 


168  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 

the  oue  which  is  urged  with  the  greatest  coulideuce  is  his  state- 
ment that  the  great  salvation  which  was  at  iirst  spoken  through 
the  Lord,  "  was  confirmed  unto  us  l»y  them  that  heard  "  (Heb. 
ii.  3).  Of  this  it  is  said,  "  The  author  was  not  an  Apostle,  for 
he  classes  himself  with  those  who  had  been  taught  by  the 
Apostles." '  True,  he  classes  himself  with  those  who  had  been 
taught  by  the  original  Apostles  concerning  the  M'ords  that  had 
been  spoken  by  Jesus,  and  this  was  certainly  true  of  Paul ;  for 
although  he  was  an  Apostle,  and  although  he  received  by  direct 
revelation,  as  he  affirms  (Gal.  i.  12)  a  knowledge  of  the  gos- 
pel, yet  it  is  true  that  his  knowledge  of  the  personal  ministry 
of  Jesus  was  derived  from  the  older  Apostles,  partly  before  his 
own  conversion  and  partly  after  it.  The  very  warfare  which  he 
waged  against  the  name  of  Jesus  before  his  conversion  implies  a 
knowledge,  though  imperfect,  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus. 
All  this  he  obtained,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  older 
apostles,  and  it  is  to  this  that  the  remark  under  discussion  has 
reference.  Moreover,  in  his'  speech  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia 
Paul  refers  his  hearers  for  evidence  concerning  the  career  of 

shows  a  deep  impress  of  Alexan-  Romans.  9  Me  wrote  before  the 
flrian  thoiifrht,  and  quotes  from  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  while 
Alexandrian  MSS.  of  the  Septua-  the  temple  services  were  still  con- 
joint without  pausing  to  question  tinuing.  10.  It  is  doubtful  wliethor 
the  accuracy  of  the  rendering.s.  4.  lie  had  ever  been  at  Jerusalem,  for 
Pie  was  a  man  of  great  eloquence,  his  references  to  the  temple  and  its 
of  marked  originality,  of  wide  ritual  seem  to  apply,  not  indeed  to 
knowledge  of  the  .Scriptures,  and  the  temple  of  Onios at  Leontopolis, 
of  remarkable  gifts  in  the  ajiplica-  but  mainly  to  the  tabernacle  as  fic- 
tion of  Scrij)tur3  arguments.  5.  scribed  in  the  Scpluagint  version 
He  was  a  friend  of  Timotiieus,  for  of  the  Pentateuch." 
he  proposes  to  visit  the  Jewish  '  Among  those  who  havedoubted 
chiirches  in  his  company.  0.  He  the  Pauline  authorship,  the  major- 
was  known  to  his  readers,  and  ity  in  former  times  ascribed  it  to 
writes  to  them  in  a  tone  of  author-  Luke ;  but  in  recent  years  the  opin- 
ity.  7.  He  was  not  an  apostle,  for  ion  firstadvanced  by  Martin  Luther 
he  classes  himself  with  tliose  who  that  Apollos  isthe  author,  bas  been 
bad  ])een  taugiit  by  the  apostles,  revived,  and  it  has  been  adopted  by 
8.  The  apostle  by  whom  he  bad  a  number  of  eminent  scholars  The 
been  taught  was  St  Paul,  for  Ik;  argniiit  iits  in  favor  of  this  opinion 
largely  "thfjiigli  indei)endently  are  forcibly  i^resented  by  Farrnr  in 
adopts  his  phra.seology,  and  makes  the  chapter  la.st  cited  from  his  Earl;^ 
a  special  use  of  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Days  of  Christianity. 


xi:\\"  'ri:sTA.MKNT  ijooks.  169 

Jesus  and  his  resurrection  fVoin  tlic  dead,  not  to  his  own  testi- 
mony, but  to  that  of  those  mIio  came  with  Jesus  from  Galilee, 
"  Who,"  he  says,  ''are  now  his  witnesses  to  the  people"  (Acts 
xiii.  26-31).  The  statement  in  question,  then,  could  have 
been  made  by  Paul,  because  it  harmonizes  both  with  the  facts 
of  the  case  and  witli  his  habit  on  other  occasions.  AVe  con- 
clude that  there  is  no  sufHcieiit  ground  to  al)andon  tlie  gen- 
erally received  opinion  that  Paul  wrote  the  epistle;  and  none 
at  all  to  doubt  that  it  came  from  the  midst  of  the  a()ostolie 
age.  ** 

The  only  internal  evidence  that  has  been  urged  aeainst  thc"'*'"^*"  "''^ 

•  fc  O  Bfound  of 

Epistle  of  James  l)y  believers,  was  based  on  the  opinion  held  doubt: 
by  a  few,  that  its  doctrine  of  justification  is  contradictory  t<> 
that  of  Paul  ;^  but,  as  is  now  universally  conceded,  there  is  no 
such  contradiction,  and  the  objection  has  been  abandoned.  By 
Rationalists  its  genuineness  has  been  questioned  on  the  ground 
of  a  supposed  allusion  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the^|!|j^j"^ 
use  made  of  the  history  of  Rahab.  As  Hebrews  was  written 
at  too  late  a  date  for  James  to  have  seen  it,  an  allusion  to  that 
epistle  could  not  have  been  made  by  him."  But  tlx;  fact  of  an 
allusion  is  imaginary;  fir  the  incident  in  which  Rahab  figured 
l)as  ever  been  familiar  to  readers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
any  Jewish  writer  might  have  referred  to  it  imlependeutly  of 
others. 

The  Rationalists  of  the  Tubingen  school  deny  the  genuine- i-^'^'er 
ness  of  tlie   Eirst   Papistic  of  Peter  solely  on   the   ground  of 
their  favorite  theory  that  there  was  an  antagonism  between 
Paul  and  Peter  to  the  end  of  their  days,  and  that  this  Epistle, 
in  common  with  some  others  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  was  writ- 

'  The   alU'gtd   contradiction    hes  once  urgi'd   tliis  ol)joction,  but  he 

between  James  ii.  24  and   liumans  afterward  withdrew  it. 

iii.  28,  but  the  context  in  the  latter  'Tliis  objec-tion    is  adopted   by 

epLStie  shows  tliat  Paul  speaks  of  Baur  from  De  Wette,  and  the  for- 

the  work  of  a  perfectly  righteous  mer  adds  the  remark  that  "Every 

life.an*!  in  the  former  .lamesspeaks  nnpri>jndiced  person  must  see  that 

of  those   works  of  special   divine  an   epistle   wliich    contains    refer- 

command  by  which  faith  is  tested  ences  to  tliat  to  the  Hebrews  must 

and  on  whicii  for  Ihi?'  reason  jus-  be  j)08t-P!iuhne."     Life  of  Pn^d,  i\ 

tlfiration    is    dependent.       inth<r  vVtS,  'i.  1. 


170  (lENUINENESS  OF  THE 

ten  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  appear  that  this  antagonism 
did  not  exist.  But  the  theory  is  based  on  a  false  assumption 
and  the  inferences  drawn  from  it  must  therefore  be  groundless. 
There  is  in  fact  nothing  within  the  Epistle  to  furnish  the  slight- 
est ground  for  doubt  that  it  was  written  by  Peter  ;  its  genu- 
ineness has  never  been  doubted  except  by  a  very  few  persons; ' 
and  even  Reuan  remarks  that  "  The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is 
one  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  are  the  most 
anciently  and  most  unanimously  cited  as  autiientic."  ^ 

II.  Peter:  With  the  Second  Epistle  it  is  far  different.     Although  the 

material  evidence  in  its  favor  is  very  positive  and  explicit  (see 
p.  121),  yet  many  believers  have  in  the  earliest  as  well  as  in 
the  latest  times,  doubted  its  genuineness,  while  unbelievers 
have  rejected  it  l)oth  for  the  reasons  which  have  led  bclievera 
to  doubt  it,  and  for  reasons  growing  out  of  their  own  unbelief 
in  miracles  and  in  ])rophecy,  both  of  which  are  attested  in  the 

grounds  oi  j^pij^t](i  Xhe  specifications  on  which  these  doubts  are  based 
may  all  be  grouped  under  three  heads ;  first,  differences  of 
style  between  this  and  the  First  Epistle;  second,  remarks  and 
expressions  which  it  is  thought  that  Peter  would  not  have 
used;  and  third,  a  supposed  copying  from  the  Epistle  of  Jude 
to  which  it  is  tiiought  that  Peter  would  not  have  resorted. 

Answer  I'.  ].  That  a  •trikitig  difference  of  style  exists  between  the 

the  first.  --,.,.  i-.iii  11  *  11  1 

two  Epistles  IS  adniittcd  by  all  competent  scholars,  yet  the 
striking  similarity  which  we  have  mentioned  before  (p.  122), 
neutralizes  the  force  of  this  difference.  Even  Farrar,  who  in- 
sists with  great  earnestness  upon  the  force  of  the  argument  on 
the  former  grcnind,  presents  the  latter  as  a  reason  why  he  can 
not  regard  tlie   Epistle  as  '^  certainly  spurious."'^     When,  in 

'"TliH   (irst  epistli>  of  Peter  has  tive  church."     F.  C.   Cook,    hUro- 
always  retained  its   hitrh  iiosition  duction  to  I.  Pefrr,  nihlr  Com.,  <*  1. 
in  the  (estimation  of  the  church;  ^The  Antichrist,  p.  vi. 
nor  was  tliore  any  rjuc^tion  as  to  "  f'^arh/   Dai/s,  c.  ix,  p.  113.     The 
its  atith'-nticity   until   within   the  specifications  which  prove  similar- 
last  few  years,  when  rationalism,  ity  of  style  and   diction   are   pre- 
guided  hy  the  sure  instinct  of  an-  sented  hy  Prof.  Luirihy,  in   his  In- 
tipathy,  has  assailed  it  in  common  troduction  to  I.  Peter,  in  the  Bible 
with    all  documents  which   attest  Commentary, 
the  faith  and  unity  of  the  primi- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOK-.  171 

addition  to  this  consideration,  we  reflect  upon  the  variations 
which  a  man's  style  may  undergo  under  change  of  circum- 
stances, of  feelings,  and  of  the  subject  matter  on  which  he 
writes;  and  wlien  we  remember  that  these  two  short  Epistles 
and  the  few  short  speeches  of  Peter  recorded  in  Acts,  are  our 
only  sources  of  information  as  to  what  Peter's  real  style  was  ; 
it  must  seem  hazardous,  if  not  reckless,  to  set  aside  on  sucli 
ground  the  solemn  assertions  of  the  Epistle  itself  as  to  its  au- 
thorship (see  p.  122).  From  such  a  conclusion  the  better  in- 
Htinct  of  scholars  has  withheld  even  those  who  have  attached 
the  greatest  weight  to  this  objection,  infidel  scholars,  of  course, 
i)eing  excepted.' 

2.  Of  the  remarks  and  expressions  which  it  is   thought  •^"S"'"""^ 

the  soc*(*n*l 

that  Peter  would  not  have  employed  the  specifications  are  nu- 
merous, but  with  a  single  exception  they  are  void  of  force. 
Many  of  them  are  such  as  would  excite  no  surprise  if  found 
in  an  unquestioned  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  others  are  sucli 
that  Peter  is  as  likely  to  have  employed  them  as  any  man  wri- 
ting in  his  name.  It  would  require  space  disproportionate  to 
their  value  to  discuss  them  individually.-     The  one  specifica. 

'  Dean   Alfonl,  than  wliom  our  <liction,  favorable  or  unfavorable  to 

age  lias  produced  no  l>etter  (Ireek  the    authenticity    of      an     epistle, 

scholar,    says:    "The   diversity  of  There  are  many  modifying  circuni- 

ptyle  in  the  two  epistles  has  been  stances.     A   writer  ai)pears  ditfer- 

frequently  alleged.     But  on  going  ently  on  diflferent   occasions.      In 

through  all  that  has  been  said,  I  the  present  instance  we  can  iiardly 

own  I  can  not  regard  it,  consider-  tell    precisely   what    the    peculiar 

able  as  it  undoubtedly  is,  as  any  style  of   Peter  was ;   for  the  Kirst 

more  than  can  well  be  accounted  Kpistle  is  of  small  conipas.s,  an<l  it 

for  by  the  total  diversity  of  subject  may  have  been  colored  by  famili- 

and  mood  in  the  two  epistles,  and  arity  with  the  productions  of  Paul.'" 

liy  the  interweaving  into  this  sec-  JnlnKlnriiDii    in    Xfn-    'rcsiaimul,  iii. 

mid  one  of  copious  reminiscences  435. 

from  another  epistle."     Greek  New  '  Many  of  the  specifications  here 

Ttitta)iirnl.    Vol.    IV.,    Prolegomena,  referred  to  were  first  advanced  by 

IV.,    {;    4.       And     Dr.     Davidson,  Farrar   {Knrhi   Dni/s,  c.     ix),  nine- 

thougli  he  takes  the  same  view  of  teen  in  number.     I  have  answered 

the  argument  from  style  and  die-  arguments  on  all  of  them  xerlnhm 

tinn  with  Canon  Farrar,  makes  the  in  an  article  on  U'e  (ienuineness  of 

following    remarks:     "Too    much  Second    Peter,    published    in    the 

•  autif  n  can  not  be  used  in  draw-  July    nnmlier     of      the     Chnatinu 

inc   a    conclusion    from    >tvle    ami  Qtinrtirh/  liirirtr  for  1SS4. 


Atifiwor  to 
the  thir'l. 


172  (;j;mixi:ness  of  the 

tion  which  we  think  worthy  of  notice  here  is  the  remark  made 
cnncernins;  Paul's  Epistles  in  II.  Peter  iii.  14-16.  It  has 
been  said  by  some  that  the  words  '"'  all  of  his  Epistles"  means 
all  of  the  E])istles  now  ascribed  to  Paul,  which  implies  a  later 
date  than  the  death  of  Peter.  But  the  writer  obviously  al- 
luded only  to  those  that  were  known  to  himself,  whether  many 
or  few.  There  is  positive  evidence  in  Peter's  First  Epistle,  as 
we  have  stated  (p.  121),  that  he  had  read  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans  and  the  Ephesians  ;  and  if  he  had  seen  Ephesians,  he 
may  have  seen  I.  and  II.  Thessalonians,  I.  and  II.  Corinth- 
ians, Galatians  and  Colossians ;  for  all  these  had  been  written 
before  the  date  of  Ephesians  except  the  last  which  was  writ- 
ten at  the  same  date.  It  has  also  been  said,  that  the  words  in 
the  passage  under  discussion,  "as  also  in  all  his  epistles, 
speaking  in  them  of  the.se  things,"  can  not  apply  to  all  the 
Epistles  already  written  by  Paul,  because  the  things  referred 
to  are  not  mentioned  in  them  all.  The  truth  of  this  depends 
upon  what  is  meant  by  "  these  things."  The  second  coming 
of  Christ  is  the  cliief  theme  of  the  chapter,  but  the  more  im- 
mediate context  (14,  15)  limits  the  thought  to  preparation  for 
that  event — such  preparation  that  we  "  may  be  found  of  him 
in  peace,  without  spot  and  blameless  in  his  sight."  Now  this 
topic  is  discu.ssed  in  every  one  of  the  Epistles  written  by  Paul 
before  this  date,  and  in  six  out  of  the  eight  the  second  coming 
of  Christ  is  itself  a  conspicuous  topic.^  The  allegation  then  is 
not  true.  A  third  objection  based  on  this  pas.sage  is,  that  the 
designation  of  Paul's  Epistles  as  Scripture  belongs  to  a  date 
later  than  the  death  of  Peter,  this  term  being  applied  in  the 
apostolic  age  to  the  Old  Testament  exclusively.  But  this  is  a 
l)eggiug  of  the  ((uestioii  ;  for  if  Peter  wrote  this  Epi.stle,  then 
at  least  one  Apo.stle  did  apply  the  term  Scripture  to  the  Epis- 
tles of  another.  The  main  question  must  be  settled  in  the 
negative  before  this  affirmation  can  Ix;  sustained. 

3.   The  objection   that  Peter  would  not  have  adopted  from 
the  Epistle  of  Jude  s(»  many  thoughts  and  expressions  as  are 

•See  I.  Theflfi.  iv.  ]:;-v.  11;  IT.    viii.  12-25;  Gal.  v.  Ki-'JI ;  vi.  H-10; 
Thess.  i.  3— ii.  12:  I.  Cor.  xv.  .%-58;    F-^pli.  v.  25-27;  Col.  iii.  3,  4. 
II.  Cor.  iv.lfr— V.  11  ;  Rom.  ii.l-16j 


NKW    TESTA  MKNT  KOOKS.  173 

found  iu  common  in  that  Epi.stle  and  the  second  chapter  of 
II.  Peter,  depends  for  its  rehivaney  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  latter  Epistle  is  the  later  uf  the  two,  a  proposition  which 
is  combatted  with  great  plausibility  by  some  eminent  scholars/ 
But  waiving  this  question,  and  granting  the  position  assumed 
iu  the  objection  as  probable,  it  would  appear  not  more  sur- 
prising that  Peter  should  himself  make  use  of  material  pre- 
viously used  bv  Judc,  than  that  some  later  writer  professing 
to  be  Peter  should  have  done  so  in  his  name.  Nor  should  it 
be  thought  at  all  incredible  that  Peter,  wishing  to  emphasize 
by  his  own  endorsement  Jude's  earnest  exhortation  to  *'  con- 
tend earnestly  for  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints," 
may  have  composed  the  second  chapter  of  this  Epistle  just  jis 
we  find  it  for  this  very  good  purpose.  A  similar,  and  oven  a 
more  remarkable,  coincidence  of  both  Avords  ;ind  thoughts  is 
found  in  the  Old  Testament  between  Isaiah  and  Micah  ;  and 
these  ])ropliets,  like  Peter  and  Judc,  were  contemporaries. 
(See  Isaiah  ii.  2,  3 ;  Micah  iv.  1,  2). 

In  conclusion,  we  may  safely  remark,  that  the  objections 
which  we  have  just  considered  can  certainly  furnish  no  justifi- 
cation for  setting  aside  as  false  the  solemn  assertions  of  the 
writer  in  which  he  assumes  to  be  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  for 
pronouncing  the  author  of  this  most  edifying  and  eloquent 
document  an  impostor. 

The  only  internal  evidence  worthy  of  notice  that  has  been-'"^^'  '=^'*' 

'^.  ,  1.1      ground  of 

alleged  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  is  the  doubt. 

fact  that  the  author  makes  a  quotation  from  an  apochryphal 

work   called   the   Book    of  Enoch,-  and    ascribes    the    word> 

'See  Prof.  Lumby's  Introduitioii  examined  it,  it  was  written  before 

toll.  Pet.  in  the  Bible  Commentary,  the   Christian   era.    but  how   long 

^The  Book  of   Enoeh    ha.s  been  before    is    quite    uut-ertain.     It  in 

preserved  from  ancit-nt  time.s  only  also  uncertain  whethei-  it  wa.s  writ- 

iii  an  Ktliiopie  translation.     Three  ten   in   (ireek   or  in    Hebrew,  but 

manu.script     copies     of     it     were  the    Etliiopic    version    was    made 

brought    to    Englanil    from   Abys-  from    the    Greek.     It    contains    a 

sinia    by  the    exi)lorer  Bruce,   in  series  of  revelations  said   to  have 

1773.     Since  then  translations  of  it  been    made  by'  Enoch  and  Noah, 

bave  been  made  nito  (ierman  and  A    full   account  of  it    is  given   by 

English.     In    the  judgment  of    a  Westcott  in  Smith's  Bible  Diction 

majority  of   tlie  critics  who   have  arj-. 


174  QENUIXENEbS  OF  THE 

quoted  to  "Enoch  the  seventh  from  Adam"  (14).  It  is 
thought  that  neither  an  Apostle,  nor  one  so  nearly  related  to 
the  Apostles  as  was  the  brother  of  James,  would  have  done 
this.  In  answer  to  this,  it  may  be  said,  first,  that  the  quota- 
tion from  au  apochryphal  book  of  certain  words  ascribed  iu 
that  book  to  a  previous  author,  is  not  an  endorsement  of  the 
book  as  a  whole,  but  only  of  the  part  quoted.  Second,  it  is 
by  no  meaus  incredible  that  among  the  many  written  docu- 
ments in  possession  of  the  ancient  Jews  a  genuine  prophecy  of 
Enoch  may  have  been  preserved,  and  if  so,  it  would  very  nat- 
urally be  coj)ied  into  any  work  pretending  to  give  an  account 
of  Enoch.  Third,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Jude  quoted 
from  the  apochryphal  book  in  question,  because  he  may  have 
obtained  the  prediction  from  the  same  source  whence  it  was 
obtained  by  the  author  of  this  book,  that  is,  from  some  older 
document  and  one  that  was  authentic.  From  these  considera- 
tions it  appears  that  the  objection  is  altogether  insufficient  to 
set  aside  as  false  the  writer's  assertion  that  he  was  the  brother 
of  James. 
Epistles  of         rpii^,  attempts  that  have  been   made  to  find  internal  evi- 

John.  ^ 

dence  against  the  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John, 
are  so  vague  and  intangible  that  Dr.  Davidson,  with  allusion 
to  Pharaoh's  lean  kine,  styles  them  '*  ill-favored  and  lean  ob- 
servations." '  Against  the  other  two  epistles  it  has  been 
urged  that  as  the  author  styles  himself  not  the  Apostle,  but 
the  Elder,  iu  the  opening  sentence  of  each,  he  must  have 
been  some  other  than  John  the  Apostle.  It  has  even  been 
argued  that  he  was  a  certain  "  John  the  Elder"  mentioned  by 
Papias  as  having  given  tlu;  latter  some  items  of  information 
which  he  had  gathered   from  the   lips  of  A])ostles.-     But   this 

'  Ihivinp  stiiteil  ami    hriofly   no-  tlif  epistle's autlK'nticity."Jn/rof/H<- 

ticcfl   Zeller's  ol)jcctions  on   inter-  lion  to  Nem  Trsl<nnru(,  in.  A^^ii. 

nal    (grounds,  he   says:    "The  pie-  ^  Papias  says:  "  But  if  at  any  time 

cedinj,'  obsiTvations  will  show  the  any  one  came  who  had    been  at- 

llimsy    arguments    which     hyper-  quainted  with  the  elders,  I  used  to 

criticism   is   not   ashamed    to  ad-  inquire  about  the  discourses  of  the 

duce.     Inileed,  there  is  no  proper  elders— what   Peter   or   what   An- 

reasoning  in   hiuli   ill-favored   and  drew    said,   or    what    Thomas    or 

-ean  observations  advanced  against  James,  or  what  .Tohn  or  Matthew, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BOOKS.  175 

last  conjecture  is  baseless  ;  and  upon  a  close  examination  of 
the  language  of  Papias  it  appears  highly  probable  that  by 
"  John  the  Elder,"  he  means  the  Apostle  John  hini.self.'  That 
John  should  call  himself  "  the  Elder  "  appears  quite  natural 
when  we  remember  that  if  he  did  write  these  epistles  he  w'as 
at  the  time  a  very  old  man  and  the  only  Apostle  still  linger- 
ing on  the  earth.  Moreover,  he  was  writing  briefly  to  private 
persons  nuich  younger  than  him.self,  and  there  was  no  occa- 
sion to  assert  his  apostolic  authority  by  styling  himself  an 
Apostle.  The  objection,  if  not  as  lean  and  ill-favored  as 
as  those  brought  against  the  first  Epistle,  is  far-fetched  and  has 
the  appearance  of  being  the  result  of  preconception  rather 
than  of  candid  investigation. 

Against  the  genuineness  of  the  Apocalypse  no  internal  Revelation, 
evidence  is  adduced,  except  by  a  very  few  critics  who  regard 
the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John  as  genuine,  but  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  this  book  on  account  of  its  marked  difference 
from  the  others  in  style.  As  we  have  stated  before  (p.  127) 
the  most  radical  of  the  rationalistic  critics  regard  it  as  un- 
fiuestionably  a  work  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  they  are  led  to 
this  conclusion  not  so  much  by  the  external  as  by  the  internal 
evidence. 

4 

or  any  one  of  the  flisriples  of  the  abidinir  utterance."     Qanle<l  from 

I.onl;  and  what  Aris-tion  and  John  Ensel)ius  and  translated  by  Farrar, 

tlie    Elder,    the    disciples    of    the  Earhi  Dni/s,  619. 

Lord  say.     Fori  thoujrht  that  the  '  That  such  is  the  meaning  of  Pa- 

infonnation    derived    from    books  pias  is  argued  with  great  force  by 

would  not  lie  so  profitable  to  us  as  Farrar  in  the  appendix  to  his  Early 

that   derived    from    a    living   and  Days  of  Christianity,  J5^jn<rsi'.'!  xi v. 


COXCLUSION. 


Having  completed  our  inquiry  into  the  genuineness  of  the 
New  Testament  books,  we  now  restate  the  conclusions  to 
which  it  has  conducted  us. 

1.  By  the  evidence  of  manuscript  copies  yet  in  existence, 
we  have  traced  all  the  books  to  the  first  half  of  the  fourtii 
century. 

2.  By  the  evidence  of  catalogues  we  have  traced  them  all 
to  the  second  half  of  the  second  century. 

3.  By  the'  evidence  of  translations  we  have  traced  all  the 
books  except  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  to  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century. 

These  three  conclusions  arc  derived  from  evidence  so  in- 
disputable that  in  regard  to  them  there  is  no  controversy. 
See  page  127. 

4.  By  the  evidence  of  quotations  we  have  traced  all  the 
books  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  exception  of  Phile- 
mon, James,  Second  and  Third  John,  Judc,  and  possibly 
Second  Peter.  These  last  we  have  traced  by  the  same  evi- 
dence so  near  to  the  Apostles  as  to  render  their  spuriousness 
in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  and  we  have  found  that  the 
absence  of  quotations  from  them  at  the  very  earliest  ))eriod 
this  side  of  the  Ajiostlos,  is  no  evidence  against  their  genuine- 
ness.    See  page  1 10. 

5.  Should  we  be  c()nij)ell<'d,  for  want  of  evidence,  to  set 
aside  the  six  Epistles  last  mentioned  as  not  genuine,  and  thus 
to  reject  them  from  the  New  Testament,  the  result  would  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  aifect  the  genuineness  of  the  other 
books,  and  the  loss  to  the  New  Testament  would  be,  not  all 
the  contents  of  thfse  books,  but  onlv  that  portion  ot"  their 
contents  not  found  in    a   (lillrrcnt    foi-m    in    other  books.     The 


GENL1.\E-NK.>.S  UF  'LllE  SEW    TK.STAMEM'  liUUKS.  177 

loss  as  respects  matters  of  laitli  and  practice  would  be  incon- 
tjiderable. 

6.  By  internal  evidence  we  have  traced  every  book  to  its 
reputed  date  and  its  reputed  author;  and  we  have  found  that 
tor  four  out  of  the  six  whose  external  evidence  is  compara- 
tively weak,  that  is,  for  Philemon,  James,  Second  Peter  and 
Jude,  the  internal  evidence  is  positive  and  explicit. 

This  last  conclusion  is  supported  by  evidence  so  forcible 
ilmt  it  is  conceded  by  the  most  radical  of  the  rationalistic 
writeis  as  regards  four  of  the  most  important  Epistles  (page 
127) ;  and  alth<uiii;h  in  reference  to  the  others  it  is  denied,  the 
grounds  of  the  denial  have  been  found  to  be  totally  insuf- 
ficient to  supj)ort  even  a  rational  doubt,  and  to  consist  mainly 
in  foregone  conclusions  derived  from  theories  unsupported  bv 
laets. 

That  all  of  these  books  were  written  by  the  authors  Avliom 
they  claim  for  themselves,  so  far  as  such  a  claim  is  made;  and 
that  the  others  were  written  by  the  authors  to  wdiom  they 
have  been  ascribed  by  believers  in  the  ages  past,  is  the  tinal 
and  only  conclusion  which  the  evidence  seems  to  justify. 


APPENDIX. 


CHAPTERS  FROM  THE  EPISTLE  OF  POLYCARP  TO  THE 
PHILIPPIANS. 


( Referred  to  in  Note  3.  page  104.) 


Chapter  ii.  Wherefore,  girding  up  your  loins  (Eph.  vi.  14;  I.  Pet. 
i.  13)  sorve  the  Lord  in  fear  and  truth,  as  those  who  have  forsaken  the 
vain,  empty  talk  and  error  of  the  multitude,  and  believed  in  Him  who 
raised  up  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  and  gave  Him  glory 
[l.  Pet.  i.  21)  and  a  throne  at  his  ri^j;ht  hand.  To  Him  all  things  in 
heaven  and  on  earth  are  subject  (Phil.  ii.  10;  I.  Pet.  iii.  22).  Him  every 
spirit  serves.  He  com«e  as  the  judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead  (.\cts 
X.  42).  His  blood  will  God  require  of  those  who  do  not  believe  in  him. 
But  He  who  raised  Him  up  from  the  dea.l  will  raise  up  us  also  (H. 
Cor.  iv.  14)  if  we  do  his  will,  and  walk  in  his  commandments,  and  love 
what  he  loved,  keeping  ourselves  from  all  unrighteousness,  eovetousness, 
love  of  money,  evil-speaking,  false-witnes.s  ;  not  rendering  evil  for  evil 
or  railing  for  railing  (I.  Pet.  iii.  9)  or  blow  for  blow,  or  cursing  for  curs- 
ing, but  being  mindful  of  what  he  said  in  his  teaching;  judge  not  that 
ye  be  not  judged  (Matt.  vii.  1)  ;  forgive  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  you 
(Matt.  vi.  12,  14)  ;  be  merciful  that  ye  may  obtain  mercy  (Luke  vi. 
:W)|  ;  with  what  mea.sure  ye  mete  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again 
(Matt.  vii.  2;  Luke  vi.  38)  ;  and  once  more,  blessed  are  the  poor,  and 
those  that  are  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  King- 
dom of  God  (Luke  vi.  20  ;  Matt.  v.  10). 

Ch.\i'.  IV.  But  the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evils  (L  Tim. 
vi.  10).  Knowing,  therefore,  that  as  we  brought  nothing  into  the  world, 
HO  we  can  carry  nothing  out  (I.  Tim.  vi.  7),  let  us  arm  ourselves  with  the 
armor  of  righteousness  (EpH.  vi.  11),  and  let  us  teach  first  of  all  our- 
selves to  walk  in  the  commandments  of  the  Lord.  Next,  your  wives 
in  the  faith  given  to  them,  and  in  love  and  purity  tenderly  loving  their 
own  husbands  in  all  truth,  and  loving  all  equally  in  all  chastity,  and 
to  train  up  their  children  in  the  knowledge  and  fear  of  (Jod.  Teach 
the  widows  to  be  discreet  as  respects  tlie  faitii  of  the  Lord,  praying 
continually  (L  Thes.  v.  17)  for  all.  being  far  from  all  slandering,  evil- 


180  APPENDIX. 

speaking,  false-witnessing,  love  of  money,  and  every  kind  of  evil ; 
knowing  that  they  are  the  altars  of  God,  that  He  clearly  perceives  all 
things,  and  that  nothing  is  hid  from  Him,  neither  reasonings,  nor  re- 
flections, nor  any  one  of  the  secret  things  of  the  heart. 

Chap.  vii.  For  whosoever  does  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  anti-Christ  (I.  John  iv.  3),  and  whosoever  does 
not  confess  the  testimony  of  the  cross,  is  of  the  devil ;  and  whosoever 
perverts  the  orai-les  of  the  Lord  to  his  own  lusts,  and  says  there  is 
neither  a  resurrection  nor  a  judgment,  he  is  tlie  tirst-horn  of  Satan. 
Wherefore,  forsaking  the  vanity  of  many,  and  their  false  doctrines,  let 
us  return  to  the  word  which  has  been  handed  down  to  us  from  the  be- 
ginning, watching  unto  prayer  (I.  Pet.  iv.  7) ;  and  persevering  in  fast- 
ing, beseeching  in  our  supplication  the  all-seeing  God  not  to  lead  ua 
into  temptation  (Matt.  vi.  13)  as  the  Lord  said:  "The  spirit  truly  is 
willing,  but  the  tlesh  is  weak"  (Matt.  xxvi.  41  ;  Mark  xiv.  38). 


INDEX. 


Acts  1)1  Apostles:  in  all  the  cata- 
l(jgiit't!,  tJO,  61,  G;'.,  G4,  ()G,  G9,  72, 
74,  75;  in  all  the  early  versions, 
77,  78,  80 ;  quoted  by  Irenanis, 
80;  known  to  Justin  ]\Iartyr,  06; 
quoted  b}'  Polycarp,  104;  inter- 
nal evidence,  117,  154;  date  as- 
signed to  it  by  Rationalists,  127. 

/Ethiopic  Version,  37. 

Apocalypse,  or  Book  of  Revelation  : 
in  catalogue  of  Council  of  Car- 
thage, GO;  in  that  of  Athanasius, 
61  ;  absent  from  that  of  Cyril,  (Jo; 
in  that  <>f  Eusebius,  but  disputed, 
M;  in  tiiat  of  Origen,  G7  ;  in  tliat 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  69 ;  in 
that  of  TertuUian,  7.S;  intheMu- 
ratorian,  74;  in  the  Coptic  Ver- 
sions, 77 ;  absent  from  Peshitf) 
Syriac,  78;  in  the  Old  Latin,  80; 
(pioted  by  Ircnanis,  89;  by  Justin 
Martyr,  95  ;  by  I'apia-:,  101  ;  inter- 
nal evidence,  12a,  175;  genuine- 
ness conceded  by  Rationalists,127. 

.\rnienian  Version,  37. 

.\thanasius,  his  Career  and  his  Cat- 
alogue, 61. 

Authenticity  of  Scriptures:  need 
of  proving  it,  1  ;  Part  Third  of 
this  work,  5. 

.Autographs  of  New  Testament  writ- 
ers :  their  tlisappoarancc,  25  ;  Tcr- 
tullian's  appeal  to  tliem,  73. 

lUirnnbas,  Epistle  of,  104;  his  use 
of  Matthew,  106. 


Baur,  Ferdinand  Christian :  his  po- 
sition and  his  writings,  12G. 

Bengel  s  Edition  of  Creek  New 
Testament,  43. 

Bentley,  Richard:  ids  statements 
about  Various  Readings,  8;  his 
contributions  to  Biblical  Criti- 
cism, 43. 

Biblical  Criticism  :  definition  of,  7; 
origin  of,  11  ;  materials  of.  25; 
results  of,  55,  56. 

Catalogues:  evidence  from,  59-71, 
127;  that  of  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage, 60;  that  of  the  Council  of 
Laodicea,  60,  n.  1 ;  that  of  Athan- 
asius, 61 ;  that  of  Cyril,  62;  that 
of  Eusebius,  63-65 ;  that  of  Ori- 
gen, 61V-69;  that  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  69-71;  that  of  Ter- 
tuUian, 71-74;  the  Muratorinn, 
74,  127;  that  of  Marcion,  75. 

Carthage,  Council  of,  60. 

Chapters:  when  introduced  into 
the  Scriptures,  41. 

Classi(!s:  Various  Readings  in,  S; 
few  early  quotations  from.  111. 

Clement  of  .Mexandria:  his  career, 
(i9;  his  catalogue  of  New  Testa- 
ment book.s,  70;  his  (piotations 
from  (hem,  83. 

Clement  of  Rome  :  his  Epistle,  10<>; 
his  opportunities,  107;  the  books 
he  qu<ited,  108;  his  evidence  de- 
fended. 142. 

Colossians,  Epi.stles   to:   in  all  tlu- 

1 181) 


182 


INDEX. 


catalogues,  60,  61,  62,  63,  66,  69, 
71,  74,  75;  in  all  the  early  ver- 
sions, 77,  78,  80 ;  quoted  by  Ire- 
nseus,  86;  by  Just.n  Martyr,  96; 
internal  evidence,  118,  158;  date 
assigned  by  skeptics,  127. 

Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to:  in  all 
the  catalogues,  60,  61,  62,  63,  66, 
69,  71,  74,  75;  in  all  the  early 
versions,  77,  78,  80;  quoted  by 
Irenseus,  86 ;  by  Justin  3Iartyr, 
96;  by  Polycarp,  104;  by  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  expressly,  108;  in- 
ternal evidence,  118,  156;  its  gen- 
uineness conceded,  127. 

Corinthians,  Second  Epistle  to  :  in 
all  the  catalogues,  60,  61,  62,  6n, 
66,  69,  71,  74,  75;  in  all  the  early 
versions,  77,  78,  80;  quoted  by 
Iren;eus,  86;  by  Polycarp,  104; 
internal  evidence,  118,  156;  lis 
genuineness  conceded,  127. 

Corrected  Greek  Text,  55. 

CoiTuptors  of  the  Text,  how  an- 
ciently regarded,  9. 

Coptic  Versions,  35,  77,  128. 

Copyists:  their  errors  dreaded  by 
ancient  authors,  8,  9;  rules  for 
Jewish  copyists,  9;  obligation  of 
Christian  copyists,  9. 

Council  of  Carthage,  60;  of  Trent, 
35. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem  :  his  career,  (il  ; 
his  catalogue,  62. 

Critical  Editions  of  New  Testa- 
ment: Mill's,  42;  Bengel's,  43; 
Wetstein's,  44;  Griesbach's,  45; 
Scholz's,  46;  I>achm;inn'.'j,  Ki ; 
Tischendorf's,  47  ;  Tregellea's,  51  ; 
Westcott  &  Hort's,  53. 

Dictation  a  source  of  Various  Read- 
ings, 20. 

Diocletian,  Persecution  under,  63, 
64. 

Diversion  of  attention,  a  source  of 
Vnrions  Uc'idiii'js.  ]'.). 


Doctrinal  alterations  of  the  text,  23. 
Doubtful  passages,  15. 

Ebionites,  75. 

Editions  of  New  Testament,  Early 
Printed:  the  first  in  Latin,  10; 
in  Plebrew,  10;  the  Greek  of 
Cardinal  Ximenes,  10,  41;  that  of 
Erasmus,  11,  41 ;  those  of  Robert 
Stephen,  41 ;  that  of  the  Elzevirs, 
42. 

English  New  Testament,  Revised, 
55. 

Ejihesians,  Epistle  to:  in  all  the 
catalogues,  60,  61,  62,  63,  66,  69,  71, 
74,  75;  in  all  the  early  versions, 
77,  78,  80;  quoted  by  Irenajus, 
86 ;  by  Polycarp,  104 ;  by  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  109;  internal  evi- 
cnce,  118,  158. 

Errors  in  Greek  Text,  7,  10. 

Euschius:  his  career,  63,  65;  his 
catalogue,  64. 

Evidence  of  Genuineness:  from 
Catalogues,  59,  127;  from  Ver- 
sions, 77,  128;  from  Quotations, 
82,  128;  internal  evidence,  112, 
143. 

Gospels,  The  Four:  mentioned  in 
catalogue  of  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage, 60;  in  that  of  Grigen,  66; 
in  that  of  Tertullian,  71 ;  de- 
scribed by  Irenteus,  85;  by  Jus- 
tin, 93,  129;  internal  evidence, 
113-115,143. 

Griesbach's  Critical  Iv.litions  of 
New  Testament,  45. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to:  in  all  the  cat- 
alogues, 60,  63,  64,  67,  70,  72 ;  ex- 
cept the  Muratorian,  74,  and  Mar- 
cion's,  75 ;  in  all  the  early  versions 
except  the  Old  Latin,  77,  78,  80; 
mentioned  l)y  Irenieus,  87;  quot- 
ed by  Clement  of  Rome,  109;  in- 
ternal I'vidence,  113,  167. 


INDEX. 


188 


Hernias,  Tlu'  Shepherd  by,  li.'7. 
Homioteleutoii  a  source  of  tkrical 

errors,  L'O. 
Herotli.itiis,  < Quotations  from,  111. 

Inattention  a  i^ource  of  ilerital 
errors,  19. 

Infallibility  of  tlie  Scriptures,  1. 

Internal  I'.vidence,  Use  of  in  Criti- 
cism, ;]8. 

Internal  Evidence  of  Genuineness, 
112,  143. 

Irena?us:  his  re(]Ui'st  of  copyists, 
9;  his  career  an<l  his  use  of  New 
Testament  Ijooks.  S4-90,  UH. 

James,  Epistle  of:  in  all  the  cata- 
logues, 00,  ^V^,  04,  00,  70,  71 ;  ex- 
cept Tertullian's,  71,  the  Murato- 
rian,  74,  and  Marcion's,  7'^■,  in 
all  the  early  versions,  77,  78,  ex- 
cept the  Old  Latin,  80;  internal 
evidence,  120,  109. 

.Jerome:  his  rcvii^ion  of  the  Old 
Latin  version,  .T). 

John,  (iospel  of:  in  all  the  cata- 
logues, 00,  01,  03,  04,  65,  69,  71, 
74 ;  except  Marcion's,  75 ;  in  all 
the  early  versions,  77,  78,  80 ; 
quoted  by  Iremeus,  85;  by  Jus- 
tin, 93;  by  Papias,  101,1.38;  in- 
ternal evidence,  11"),  144. 

John,  First  Epistle  of:  in  all  the 
catalogues,  00,  01,  03,  04,  07,  09, 
70;  excej)t  the  Muratorian,  74, 
and  Marcion's,  75;  in  all  the  early 
versions,  77,  78,  80;  quoted  by 
Irena-us,  87  ;  by  Papias,  ?  10]  ;  by 
Polycarp,  104;  internal  evidence, 
123,' 174. 

Jolin,  Second  Kjiistle  of:  in  all  the 
catalogues,  60,  01,  04,  *iO,  09,  71, 
75;  except  Tertullian's,  71,  and 
Marcion's,  7-');  in  all  the  «>arly 
versions,  77,  80,  excei)|.jlhe  Pesh- 
itoSyriac,  78;  quoted  by  "Trenaus, 
87:  internal  evidence,  ^'2'^.  174. 


Joiin,  Third  Epistle  of:  in  all  the 
catalogues,  GO,  61,  03,  04,  06,  69, 
71,  74,  except  Tertullian's,  71, 
and  Marcion's,  75  ;  in  all  the  early 
versions,  77,  80,  except  the  Pesh- 
ito  Syiiac,  7S  ;  internal  evidence, 
123,  174. 

Jude,  Ejiislle  of:  in  all  the  cata- 
logues, 00,  01,  03,  04,  00,  09,  72,  74  ; 
except  Marcion'.a,  75;  in  all  the 
early  versions,  77,  80,  except  the 
Pcshito  Syriac,  78 ;  internal  evi- 
•  lence,  122,  173. 

Ju.stin:  his  career,  91-9.'> ;  his  use 
of  the  Gospels,  93-95  ;  his  use  of 
other  New  Testament  books, 
95-98. 

Lachmann's  Critical  Editions  of 
New  Testament,  4(). 

Laodicea,  Council  of,  60,  note  1. 

Latin  Vulgate  Version,  35. 

Lectionaries,  27. 

Livy,  Quotations  from,  111. 

Luke,  Gospel  of:  in  all  the  cata- 
logues, 00,  01,  03,  64,  60,  09,  71, 
74,  75  ;  in  all  the  early  versions, 
77,  78,  80;  quoted  by  Irena^us, 
85;  by  Justin,  93,  128;  by  Poly- 
carj),  104  ;  liy  Clement  of  Rome, 
108;  internal  evidence,  115,  143; 
date  assigned  by  Rationalists,  127. 

^[anuscripts:  the  autographs,  25, 
7'.\ ;  ^ISS.  of  first  three  centuries, 
20;  uncial  and  cursive  distin- 
guished, and  number  of  each,  20  ; 
Ibose  of  lectionaries,  27  ;  lm\v  and 
where  preserved,  28;  their  names, 
28,  44 ;  their  ages,  how  deter- 
mined, 28;  the  four  great  uncials, 
29;  theSinaitic,  30,  50;  the  Alex- 
andrian, 30  ;  tlie  Vatican,  31 ;  Co- 
dex Ephraemi,  32,  49;  their  value 
in  Biblical  Criticism,  32;  Iboir 
eenealogies,  .33. 

Mark,  C.^pd   of:    in    :dl    the   cata- 


184 


IXDEX. 


logues,  00,  (31,  O:],  (14,  6G,  (it),  71, 
74;  except  ^larcion's,  75;  in  all 
the  early  versions,  77,  78,  80  ;  ac- 
count of  by  Irenjeus,  So ;  used  l>y 
.Tuslin,  03,  128;  account  of  by 
Papias,  100,  140  ;  quoted  by  l\)ly- 
carp,  104,  142;  by  riemont  <<{ 
Rome,?  100,  142;  internal  evi- 
dence, 114,  143. 

Marcion :  opi)osed  by  Tertullian, 
73;  his  catalotrue,  75;  opposed  by 
Justin,  96. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of:  in  all  the  cat- 
alogues, 60,  01,  03,  64,  6(),  ()0,  71, 
74;  excei)t  Marcion's,  75;  in  all 
the  early  versions,  77,  78,  80;  ac- 
count of  by  Irena'us,  85 ;  used  by 
Justin,  93,  128;  account  qI  by 
Pajiias,  100, 130  ;  (pioted  by  Poly- 
carp,  104,  142;  by  Barnabas,  100, 
142;  by  Clement  of  Rome,  109, 
142;   internal  evidence,  113,  143. 

Memory,  Trusting  to,  a  source  of 
clerical  errors,  21. 

IMie.srob,  Armenian  translator,  .".7. 

:\r;ll's  Critical  Edition  nf  New  Tes- 
tament, 42. 

^lispronunciatioii  a  scarce  of  cler- 
ical errors,  20. 

Muratnrian  Canon.  74,  127. 

Old  Latin  Version  of  New  Testa- 
ment: its  origin,  34,  78;  its  re- 
vision by  Jerome,  35  ;  the  books 
it  contained,  79,  128. 

Order  proper  for  intiniry  on  Evi- 
dences, 4. 

Origen  :  his  career,  Oii,  08;  his  no- 
tice of  various  readings,  10;  his  use 
of  New  Testament  books,  OH-PiS. 

Papias:  ids  career,  98,  99;  his  ac- 
count of  ^latthew's  Gospel,  100; 
of  Mark's,  100;  his  use  of  other 
New  Testament  books,  101  ;  posi- 
tions of  Rationali.sts  in  reference 
to  his  statements,  1.^0-1  II, 


Peshito  Syriac  \'ei"sio.»  ;  its  origin, 
34, 1 28 ;  the  New  Te.scament  books 
it  contained,  78. 

Peter,  First  Ejiistle  of:  in  all  the 
catalogues,  60,  61,  63,  04,  67,  69, 
72 ;  except  the  Muratorian,  74, 
and  Marcion's,  75  ;  in  all  the 
early  versions,  77,  78,  80  ;  quoted 
expressly  by  Irenaeus,  87  ;  used 
by  Papias,  101 ;  by  Polycarp,  104, 
142;  by  Clement  of  Rome,  109, 
142;  internal  evidence,  121,  109. 

Peter,  Second  Epistle  of ;  in  all  the 
catalogues,  GO,  01,  03,  04,  06,  07, 
69,?  71  ;  except  the  Muratorian, 
74,  and  jMarcion's,  75 ;  in  the 
Co])tic  Versions,  77 ,  absent  from 
I  he  Pe.shito  Syriac,  78,  and  the 
Old  Latin,  80;  quoted  by  Irenae-  . 
u.s,?  88;  by  Justin,?  97  ;  by  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,?  109;  internal  evi- 
dence, 121,  127,  170. 

Persecution  :  that  under  Diocle- 
tian, 0)3,  04;  that  under  Septim- 
ius  Sever  us,  68. 

Pliilipi)ians.  Epistle  t<i :  in  all  the 
catalogues,  (50,  (il,  03.  04,  00,  ()9, 
71,  74,  75;  in  all  the  early  A'er- 
s'ons,  77,  78,  80;  quoted  by  Tre- 
n{eus,  8() ;  known  to  Justin,  9(5 ; 
quoted  by  Polycarp,  101  ;  inti'i-- 
nal  eviilence,  118,  101, 

Philemon,  Epistle  to:  in  all  tiie 
c.italogues,  00,  01,  03,  ()4,  0(),  09, 
71,  74,  75;  in  all  the  early  ver- 
sions, 77,  78,  ,S();  cjuoted  in  no  ex- 
t;iiit  work  of  the  second  century, 
110;  internal  evidence,  118,   100. 

Polycarp:  his  career,  l(r2,  103;  his 
New  Testament  quotations,  104, 
142. 

Pothinus:  his  connecliou  wilh  Ire- 
nanis,  89. 

Printing:  when  invented,  10;  first 
printed  Bibles,  10;  its  effect  on 
elericcit  .jiTors,  11  ;  early  printed 
editions  of  the  Greek  N'eAV  Testa- 


INDEX. 


186 


meat,     41;    roiiiU'Ction    ui    with 
liiblic-al  Criticism,  41. 
Punctuation:  origin  of,  21;  absence 
of  a  source  of  clerical  errors,  21. 

Quotations:  use  of  in  Biblical  Criti- 
cism, 37 ;  evitlence  froivi  in  re- 
gard to  genuineness  of  books,  82 : 
irlassitication  of,  82;  number  of 
from  classical  authore.  111. 

Kationalists  :  [jusition  of  as  to  gen- 
uineness of  New  Testament 
books,  127. 

Received  Text,  origin  of.  41. 

Revised  Version  of  lOnglisli  .New 
Testament,  •')•"). 

Romans,  Epistle  to  :  in  all  the  cat- 
alogues, t)i»,  (il,  ().',,  (J4,  ()(>,  69,  71, 
74.  To;  in  all  the  early  versions, 
77,  78,  80;  quoted  by  Iren;eus, 
8(5;  by  Justin.  96;  by  Polycarp, 
104;  by  Clement  of  Rome,  109; 
internal  exidence,  118,  \o~);  gen- 
uineness concofled  by  unbeliev- 
ers, 127. 

Scliolz  :  his  critical  edition  of  N'ew 
Testament,  46. 

Scriptures :  Diocletian's  order  to 
l)urn  them,  63;  C0|)ies  of  tliem 
made  for  ('onstantine,  65. 

Septimius  Severus,  Persecution  un- 
der, 68. 

.Shej)lierd,  The.  by  Hernias:  time 
of  its  composition,  127,  attached 
to  the  Sinaitic  M.'^.,  30. 

Sinaitic  MS.:  description  of,  30. 
discovery  of,  49,  50. 

Spirit  proper  for  the  stiKh-  of  I'.vi- 
dences,  2. 

Stephen,  his  editions  of  (ireek 
New  Testament.  41. 

Tacitus,  Quotations  from.  111. 
Terence,  Various  lic.-idint^  in    hi« 
Comedies.  S. 


Tirtulhan  :  his  catalogue  of  New 
Testament  books,  71-74. 

Textual  Criticism  defined,  7. 

Tbessalonians,  Epistles  to:  in  all 
the  catalogues,  60,  61,  63,  64.  (Kj, 
69,  71,  74,  75  ;  in  all  the  early  ver- 
sions, 77,  78,  80,  quoted  by  Ire- 
iKcus,  86;  known  to  .Justin,  96; 
(juoted  by  P(jlycarp,  104;  inter- 
nal evidence,  118,  156. 

Timothy,  l-'])istles  to :  in  all  the 
catalogues,  (50,  61,  63,  %i,  66,  69, 
71,  74;  except  Marcion's,  75;  in 
all  the  early  versions,  77,  78,  80 ; 
(juoted  by  Iiena'us,  8(5 ;  liy  Poly- 
carp, 104;  internal  evidence,  118. 
1(53. 

Tischendorf :  his  critical  editions 
of  New  Testament,  47  ;  his  career, 
48-51. 

Titus,  Epistle  to:  in  all  the  cata- 
logues, (50,  61,  63,  04,  66,  69,  71, 
74;  except  Marcion's,  75  ;  in  all 
the  early  versions,  77,  78,80;  in- 
ternal i'vidcnce,  IIS,  1(53. 

Tregelles:  his  critical  editionof  New 
Testament,  51  ;   his  career,  51-5.3. 

Tubingen  Scliool  of  Rationalists, 
126,  127. 

T'Iphilas,  Translator  of  Armenian 
\'(>rsion,  ;'>7. 

Various  Readings:  found  in  the 
Classics,  S;  number  of  in  the  New 
Testament,  11,  1.".;  their  charac- 
ter, 14  ,  a  specimen  iia.s.sage.  11  ; 
eirect  of  on  the  matter  of  the 
Scriptures,  16;  illustration  of 
from  n  will,  17,  18;  sources  of 
19-21. 

^'el•.ses,  when  introdMcrd  into  Ihe 
New  Testament,  11. 

N'ersions,  Ancient,  value  of  in 
I'iblical  Criticism,  .3.'< ;  condit^n 
'jf  their  MSS.,  33  ;  value  of  as  evi- 
deni'P   of  genuinene.vt,    77;     the 


186  INDEX. 

Peshito   Syriac   Version,  .34,   78,  Westcott  &  Hort :  their  ciitical  edi- 

128;   the  Old  Latin  Version,  34,  tion  of  New  Testament,  53-55. 

78,128;   the  Coptic  Versions,  35,  Wetstein :    his   critical   edition   ol 

77,  128;    the  .'Ethiopia   Version,  New  Testament,  44. 

37 ;  the  Gothic,  37  ;   the  Arnieni-  AVriting  ^laterials   of  New  Testa 

an,  37.  ment  writers,  25. 


EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY 


PART     III. 

(JK EDIBILITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMEiS^T 

BOOKS. 

TART     lY. 

INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

BOOKS. 


J.  W.  McGARYEY,  A.  M. 

Professor  of  Sacred  History  asp  Kvidentes  in  the  Cou.kob  of  thk  Bible, 

KENTITKY    I'MVERSITY. 


LOUISVIT-LE  : 
GUIDE  PRINTrN"(J   AND  ITFUJSHIN(^  CO. 

18<)1. 


Copyright,  1891,  by 
J.  W.  McGabvey. 


PREFACE. 


Five  years  liave  passed  by  since  the  volume  con- 
taining the  first  two  Parts  of  this  work  on  Evidences  was 
published.  Those  two  Parts,  treating  of  the  Integrity  of  the 
New  Testament  Text,  and  the  Genuineness  of  the  New 
Testament  Books,  met  with  such  a  reception  from  the  public 
as  to  encourage  the  author  to  continue  the  work,  and  he  had 
progressed  so  far  with  it  as  to  have  written  a  la"rge  portion  of 
Part  Third,  wlion  a  fire,  which  laid  his  dwelling  in  ruins, 
consumed  his  manuscript  together  with  all  the  notes  and 
references  which  he  had  accumulated.  This  caused  an  unex- 
pected delay  in  the  preparation  of  the  present  volume. 

The  reader  is  reminded,  as  was  stated  in  the  preface  to 
the  former  volume,  that  this  work  is  intended,  not  for  those 
already  proficient  in  the  knowledge  of  Evidences,  but  for 
those  who  have  given  the  subject  little  or  no  attention.  It 
does  not,  therefore,  attempt  to  exhaust  the  subject,  but  only 
to  present  so  much  of  it  as  can  be  mastered  in  a  course  of 
instruction  in  high  schools  and  colleges.  It  is  prepared  with 
an  especial  reference  to  class-room  instruction. 

It  would  argue  inexcusable  ignorance  of  the  state  of 
|)ul)lic  opinion  in  our  generation  if  the  author  should  expect 
all  of  the  positions  taken  and  defended  in  this  volume  to  ni(Mt 
with  universal  approval  even  among  the  friends  of  th«'  P.iblc. 
Especially   is   this   true   of  what   he   has  written  concern inji 

Inspiration.     On  no  other  sul)jert  arc  the  minds  of  believers 

lii) 


IV  PREFACE. 

SO  unsettled  and  bewildered.  On  this,  as  on  all  the  other 
topics  discussed  in  the  voluino,  I  have  done  wiiat  I  could  to 
arrive  at  the  truth,  and  to  present  my  conclusions  in  an  in- 
telligible form.  I  humbly  trust  that  my  feeble  effort  may  be 
blessed  of  God  in  helping  to  settle  in  the  truth  some  minds 
that  are  now  unsettled,  and  to  guard  some  of  the  youth  of 
our  country  from  tiie  doubts  and  perplexity  which  have  har- 
assed many  of  their  seniors. 

Whether  I  shall  live  to  carry  out  my  undertaking,  so  as 
to  extend  the  inquiries  which  I  have  now  completed  as 
regards  the  New  Testament,  to  the  books  of  the  Old,  is  of 
course  known  only  to  Him  in  whose  hands  are  "  life  and 
breath  and  all  things."  To  Him  and  to  his  people  I  trust- 
fully commit  the  destiny  of  this  present  work. 


CONTENTS 


PART    III. 
THE   CREDIBILITY   OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 

CHAPTER   I. 
Canons  of  Historical  Criticism 1-6 


CHAPTER    II. 
Evidence  from  Agreement  with  Otiier  Writings, 

CHAPTER    III. 
Evidence  from  Incidental  Agreement  with  Other  Writings. 

CHAPTER    IV. 
Alleged  Contradictions  between  John  and  the  Synoptists, 

CHAPTER    V. 
Alleged  Contradictions  between  the  Synoptic  Gospels,    . 

CHAPTER   VI. 
Alleged  Contradictions  between  Acts  and  otiu-r  Books.    . 

CHAPTER    VII. 
Undesigned  Coincidences  between  the  (iospels, 


.CHAPTER    [X. 

Positions  of  riil->i-li»-v(is  in  Reft  ifntv  to  Mira<k'«. 


6-14 


15-29 


:iO-oO 


ol-(i.i 


ij6-S'2 


83-JM 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
Undesigned  Coincidences  between  Acts  and  Paul's  Epistles,  .      y,5-108 


loy  llo 

IV} 


VI  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTEK    X. 


The  Direct  Evidence  for  the  New  Testament  Miracles:  The 

Resurrection  of  Jesus .    116-131 

CHAPTER   XI. 
The  Resurrection  of  Jesus :  Adverse  Theories  Considered,  132-145 

CHAPTER   XII. 
The  Resurrection  of  Jesus:  The  Testimony  of  the  Witnesses,    146-162 

CHAPTER    XIII. 
The  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  1G3-1G7 

PART   IV. 

THE   INSPIRATION    OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   BOOKS. 

CHAPTER   I. 
The  Promises  of  Jesus, 171-176 

CHAPTER    II. 

Fulfillment  of  the  Promises  as  Stated  in  Acts,   ....     177-181 

CHAPTER    III. 

Fulfillment  of  the  Promises  as  Stated  in  the  Epistles,       .        .     182-18(> 

CHAPTER    IV. 
Inspiration  of  Mark.  Luke,  James,  and  Judas,  .  .     187-189 

CHAPTER    V. 
Modifying  Statements  and  Facts, 190-201 

CHAPTER    VI. 
Objections  Con.sidered, 202-211 

CHAPTER    VII. 
Adverse  Theories  of  Inspiration,  .    212-217 

CHAPTER    VIII. 
Confirmatory  Evidence' .  .     218-223 


PART    III. 

CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

BOOKS. 


PART  III. 

THE  CREDIBILITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT BOOKS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


CANONS  OF  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM. 


Having  reached  the  conclusion   in  Part  Third,  that  the  The  i>res- 

^  .  eut 

New  Testament  hooks  were  written  by  the  autliors  to  whom  in4>''n  ■■ 
tliey  are  commonly  ascribed,  we  now  inquire  whether  they 
are  credible  writings..,  By  this  inquiry  is  meant,  not  whether 
they  are  infallibly  accurate,  but  whether  they  possess  thai 
degree  of  reliability  which  belongs  to  historical  works  of  the 
better  class.  The  question  of  their  infallibility  will  be  con- 
sidered farther  on. 

It  is  obvious  that  tliis  inquiry  has  reference  chiefly  t<»  tlio '"»'"" 

*         ■  •  l)0(ik^  it 

historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  but  it  does  not  refer  "Pi'i'^'' 
to  them  CAclusively.     The  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  contain 
some    historical    matter,  and   to  this    extent    the   question  of 
credibility  a|>plios  to  them  ecpially  \yith   the   books  formally 
historical.      Fn  other  words,  it  applies  to  all  the  statements  ofnn'i  t" 
fact  found   in  all  the  books.     These  statements  are  distribu-<''"^''f""'' 

statf- 

table   into    four    cla.sses :     tho.se    of    ordinary    history;    those '"*'"'^- 
concerning  miraculous  events;  the  reports  of  speeches  written 
long  aft«r  they  were  delivered  ;  and  th(>  revelations  which  the 


'2  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

writer?  claim  to  have  received  from  God.  We  are  to  inquire, 
first,  whether  the  events  here  mentioned,  which  belong  to  the 
ordinary  course  of  human  history,  actually  took  place; 
second,  whether  those  of  a  miraculous  character  really 
occurred;  third,  whether  the  reports  of  speeches  delivered  by 
Jesus  and  certain  others,  not  one  of  which  was  written  at 
the  time  of  delivery,  but  some  of  which  were  written  almost 
;i  life-time  after  delivery,  can  be  relied  on  as  correct;  and, 
fourth,  whether  the  direct  communications  of  God's  Avill  on 
various  subjects  pertaining  both  to  the  present  and  the  future, 
which  some  of  these  writers  claim  to  have  received,  should  be 
accepted  as  such, 
^artmeut  ^^^  subjcct  of  tliis  inquiry  is  a  branch  of  the  modern 
involved*^  s^^^"^^  of  Historical  Criticism.'  The  province  of  this  sci- 
ence is  to  distinguish  the  true  from  the  false  in  historical 
documents.  It  differs  from  Textual  Criticism^  in  that  it  deals 
with  facts,  while  the  latter  deals  with  words.  It  has  acquired 
the  title.  Higher  Criticism,  because  of  the  greater  importance 
attached  to  facts  than  to  the  exact  words  in  which  they  are 
described,  and  because  of  the  greater  learning  necessary  to  its 
application.  By  the  application  of  its  rules  of  evidence  the 
secular  history  of  the  ancient  world  has  been  revolutionized, 
and  a  new  ancient  history  constructed.  So  complete  is  this 
revolution,  that  such  works  as  Rollin's  Ancient  History,  which 
was  a  standard  in  the  early  part  of  our  century,  is  now 
obsolete,  and  the  same  fate  has  befallen  many  other  works 
once  regarded  as  authentic.^     In   the     later  development    of 

'  "The  last  century  has  seen  the  '"The  whole  world  of  profane 
birth  and  growth  of  a  new  science  history  has  been  revolutionized, 
of  Historical  ('rifi(;ifini.  l^efrinninn  By  a  searching  and  critical  investi- 
in  France  with  the  lahors  of  I'ouil-  gat  ion  of  the  mass  of  materials  on 
ly  and  Beaufort,  it  advanced  with  which  that  history  rested,  and  by 
rapid  strides  in(iermany  under  the  the  application  to  it  of  canons  em- 
guidance  of  Niehulir,  Otfricd,  Mul-  bodying  the  judgments  of  a  sound 
lerand  Bockii,and  finally  has  been  discretion  upon  the  value  of  difTer- 
introduced  and  naturalized  among  ent  sorts  of  evidence,  the  views 
ourselves  by  means  of  the  writings  of  the  ancient  world  formerly  en- 
of  our  best  living  historians."  tertained  have  been  in  ten  thou- 
((leorge  Rawlinson,  IIiMoriail  JCii-  sand  points  i-ither  modilie  1  or  re- 
dences,  28).  versed;  a  new  antiquity  has  been 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  6 

the  science  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  revolutionize  in  a 
similar  manner  the  history  contained  in  the  Bible.  So 
zealous  have  been  the  efforts  of  some  scholars  in  this  direc- 
tion, that  the  science  itself  has  become  associated  in  the  popu- 
lar mind  with  unbelief  in  tin;  Scriptures,  and  has  thus  come 
into  disrepute.  This  result  is  by  no  means  legitimate;  for  by 
a  proper  application  of  the  rules  of  historical  criticism  the 
authenticity  of  all  histories,  sacred  as  well  as  profane,  must 
he  determined. 

The  Canons  of  historical  criticism  were  first  formulated  by  The 

C&I10D8 

George  Rawlinson  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  of  1859  (Lecture  hy  which 
First),  and  published   in  his   work   entitled   Historical   Evi-i'wuiry  is 

''  r  ^  couduct- 

dences.     Abbreviated    and    otherwise   modified,  they  are   as^d- 
follows : 

Canon  L  The  writings  of  a  contemporary,  who  is  creiH- 
ble,  and  who  has  had  opportunity  f>r  personal  knowledge  of 
the  facts  recorded,  have  the  highest  degree  of  credibility. 
Under  this  head  must  be  included  public  records,  monuments 
and  inscriptions,  made  by  persons  who  are  contemporary  with 
the  events.^ 

Canon  IL  Those  of  a  writer  who  may  be  reasonably 
supposed  to  have  obtained  his  information  from  eye  witnesses 
j>ossess  the  second  degree  of  credibility. 

Canon  III.  Those  of  a  writer  who  lived  in  an  age 
later  than  the  events,  and  whose  source  of  information  was 
oral  tradition,  have  the  third  and  lea*-t  degree  of  credibility. 
But  if,  in  this  case,  the  events  are  of  public  notoriety,  and  of 
such  importance  as  to  have  affected  national  life,  or  to  have 
been  commemorated  by  some  public  observance,  their  credi- 
bility is  greatly  enhanced  by  these  considerations. 

Canon  IV.  When  the  traditions  of  one  people  are 
corroborated   by   those   of  another,  especially    by   those  of  a 

raised  up  out  of  the  old,  wliileninrli  '"The     most     imiiortant     docu- 

that   was  unreal  in  tiic  pii-fure  of  nicnts  for  history  an*  those  which 

pa.st  tinu'S  which  men  liad  formed  poss-.ss    in    tlie    least    tle^rree    the 

to  themselves  has  disappeared,     .  historic    furni.      The   authority   of 

.     .     and  a  firm  and  strong  fabric  chronicles  must  pive  place  to  med- 

lias  arisen  out  of  the  shattered  do-  als,    maps,    or    authentic    letters." 

bris  of  the  fallen  system."     (Ih.)  (Renan,  Apontlrs,  21\. 


CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 


General 
applica- 
tion of 
the 
canon». 


A  genera 

CDllflU- 

siuD. 


distant  and  hostile  pet)pl(',  this  greatly  increases  the  probabil- 
ity of  the  events.  The  value  of  .sueh  evidence  di  peuds  on 
the  improbability  of  accidental  agreement,  and  the  impossibil- 
ity of  collusion. 

Canon  V.  The  concurrent  testimony  of  independent 
writers  greatly  increases  the  probability  of  an  event;  and 
their  agreement  has  the  greater  force  when  it  is  incidental,  as 
when  one  only  alludes  to  an  event  which  the  other  narrates, 
or  mentions  a  circumstance  incidentally  explained  by  another. 
The  probability  in  this  case  is  increased  in  a  geometrical  ratio 
to  the  number  of  witnesses.  That  is,  the  testimony  of  two 
is  not  twice  as  strong,  but  four  times  as  strong  as  that  of 
one.' 

If  we  make  a  general  application  of  these  Canons  to  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  we  find  them  arranged  as  fol- 
lows: Of  the  four  Gospels,  Matthew  and  John  come  under 
Canon  L,  seeing  that  these  writers  were  eye-witnesses  of 
nearly  all  the  events  which  they  record.  The  same  is  true  of 
Luke  as  respects  those  portions  of  Acts  in  wiiich  he  speaks 
in  the  first  person;  and  of  the  apostles  Paul,  Peter,  James, 
Jude  and  John  in  their  epistles,  so  far  as  they  mention  events 
which  transpired  under  their  own  observation.  The  two 
Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  together  with  those  piirts  of  Acts 
in  which  Luke  does  not  use  the  first  person,  come  under 
Canon  II.,  seeing  that  these  writers  were  not  eye  witnesses, 
but  wrote  what  had  been  narrated  to  them.  Thus  we  see 
that  of  the  eight  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  six  possess 
thf  highest  degree  of  historical  credibility  so  far  as  oppor- 
tunities to  know  are  concerned,  and  only  two  have  the  second 
degree.  Not  one  of  them  belongs  to  an  age  later  than  that  of 
the  events,  or  was  dependent  for  his  information  on  uncertain 
oral  tradition. 

I  As  to  the  credibility  of  these  writers,  we  may  say  in 
general  torms,  in  advance  of  a  more  critical  inquiry,  that 
their  high  character,  indicated  by  the  unvarying  purity  of  the 
sentiments  found  in  their  writings,  lifts  them  above  the  sus- 
picion of  being  untrustworthy,  and  secures  to  them  a  credi- 
'  /iiitlrr'n  Avnhxii/,  Part  II.,  cli.  vii. 


NEW    TPISTAMENT    I500KS.  5 

bility  at  least  ccjual  to  that  of  the  best  secular  historians.  This 
consideration  unites  with  the  proceeding  to  place  them  among 
the  most  credii)]e  of  writers,  and  to  render  any  event  which 
they  record,  concerning  wliich  there  is  no  special  ground  of 
doubt,  as  |)robal)lo  as  any  of  the  facts  that  make  up  history. 
This  much  is  conceded  l)y  all,  even  among  unbelievers,  who.se 
opinions  are  respected  by  intelligent  men;  and  it  is  conceded 
on  the  ground  which  we  have  stated. 


CHAPTER   II. 


EVIDENCE   FROM   AGREEMENT  WITH   OTHER  WRITINGS. 


One  very  satisfactory  mettiod  of  testing  the  credibility  of 
:i  writer,  is  to  compare  liis  statements  with  those  of  other 
Nature  of  writers  with  similar  opportunities  for  information.  When 
evidence,  the  writers  compared  are  independent,  that  is,  when  neither 
obtained  his  information  from  the  other,  an  agreement  on  any 
fact  imparts  to  that  fact  the  degree  of  probability  referred  to 
in  Canon  V.  When  they  disagree,  this  raises  a  (piestion  as 
to  the  relative  credibility  of  the  two  writers.  Unfortunately, 
the  winters  who  were  contemj)orary  with  those  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  are 
very  few,  especially  those  whose  subjects  led  them  to  speak  of 
the  same  events,  or  who  possessed  the  information  necessary 
to  speaking  of  them  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  Among 
Jewish  writers  there  is  only  one,  and  among  Roman  writers, 
three  or  four.'  Their  statements  are  few,  but  valuable. 
Account  1.   Josephus,   the    most    noted    of    all    uninspired    Jewish 

phus.  writers,  was  born  in  Jerusalem  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign 
of  Caius  Ctesar,  a.  d.  37.  This  was  the  third  year  after  the 
founding  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  next  year  after 
its  dispersion  under  the  |)ersecutioii  whicih  arose  ai)ont  Stephen. 
The  death  of  the  elder  James,  A.  d.  44,  occurred  in  the  same 

'  Why  the  latter  arc  so  lew  is  sat-  within  a  narrow  space  foreign  to 
i.sfactorily  explained  by  Renan,  as  them.  Christianity  was  lost  to 
follows:  "As  to  the  Greek  and  Lat-  their  vision  upon  tlict  dark  back- 
in  writers,  it  is  not  furpiisinj?  that  tironnd  of  Judaism.  It  was  only  a 
tliey  paid  little  attention  to  a  move-  family  quarrel  amon^  the  subjecits 
ment  which  they  (;ould  not  com-  of  a  dej^radcd  nation  ;  why  trouble 
prehend,  and   which  whs  ynjng  on  themsel  ves  about  it?"L'l7)rts/7fs,  227). 


,  NEW    TESrA.MKNT    HOoKS.  / 

city  when  Josephus  was  seven  years  oUI.     At  the  age  of  nine- 
teen   he  joined    the    sect    of  the    Pharisees,  who    were    then 
extremely  hostile  to  the  church,  and  especially  to  the  apostle 
Paul  and  others  who  preached  among  tiie  Gentiles.     When  he 
was  twenty-six  years  old  (a.  d.  63),  he  visited  Rome  for  the 
purpose  of  interceding  for    certain   priests  whom  Felix  had 
sent  thither  in  bonds  to  defend  themselves  before  Cfesar.     He 
suffered  shipwreck   on  the    voyage,  as   Paul   had    done   three 
years  previous,  and  this  visit  was    made  in  the  year  in  which 
Paul  was  released   from  his  two  years'  imprisonment  in  that 
city.     The  year  previous    to   this  voyage,  James,  the  Lord's 
brother,  was  slain  in  Jerusalem,  and  Josephus  must  have  been 
cognizant  of  the  fact.     At  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war 
against  the   Romans,  which   resulted  in  the  downfall  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  he  was   in   command   of  the   native   forces   in 
Galilee,  which  was  then  thickly  set  with  Christian  churches. 
He    was  overpowered   and    taken    prisoner  by  the    Romans, 
and  was  a  prisoner  in  the  camp  of  Titus  during  the  last  siege 
of  Jerusalem.     He  spent  the   rest  of  his  life  in  Rome,  and 
was  for  some  years  the  guest  of  the  emperor  Vespasian.     His 
principal  works  are  The  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  a  History  "'g,^'"*'' 
of  the  War  with  the  Romans,  and  an  Autobiography.     From 
the  last    we   have  gleaned  the   facts  in  his  career  mentioned 
above,  from  which  it  appears  that  he  lived  in  the  very  midst 
of  tiie  times  and  places  in  which  the   Apostles  figured,  and 
that  he   must  have  had  personal  knowledge  of  many  of  thi' 
events  mentioned  in  Acts  and  the'  Epistles  as  having  tran- 
spired in  Jerusalem,  Judea  and  Galilee.      He  died  about  the 
year  100. 

As  Jose|)hus  gives  a  detailed  history  of  his  country  cover- 
ing   all    the    period    of  New    Testament    History,  we    might 
reasonal)ly  expect  of  him  an  account  of  the  career  of  Jesus,  Moager^.^ 
and   of  the   stirring  events  in  the  early  history  of  the  J<^wish[.'|j*^'Jg,,, 
Church.     In  this  we  are   disappointed;  and   tiie   omission   is^pjvjnt.'" 
doubtless    to    be    accounted    for    by    his   connection  with    the*^'''"''' 
Pharisees.    He  could  have  given  no  truthful  account  of  Jesus 
or    of  the   Church,  which    would    not    have    been   a   story  of 
shame   foi-   tl»o   sect   to  which    he   belonged;  and  as  his  eiiief 


8  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE     . 

purpo.se  in  writing  was  to  elevate  his  people  in  the  minds  of 

Greeks  and   Romans  who  despised  them,  national  pride  and 

religious    bigotry    alike    demanded    silence    on    this    theme. 

.     Still,  he  did  not  altogether  avoid   the  subject,  and  we  shall 

now  take  notice  of"  some  of  his  statements. 

count^of  '-^'   ^^    stating   the    cause    of  a  war   betweeu   Herod   the 

Herod      Tctiarch    and    Aretas,    king    of  Arabia    Petrea,   he   gives   a 

^^'''^''"*^'^' minute  account    of  the  intrigue   by  which  the  former  induced 

his  brother  Philip's  wife   to    leave   her    lawful    husband   and 

come  to  live  with  him/     These  details  are  all  omitted  by  the 

Kew  Testament  writers  ;  but  Matthew,  Mark   and  Luke  all 

mention  the  fact  of  the  incestuous  marriage,  and  thev  all  men- 

tion  it  incidentally,  as  does  Josephus.     This  is  a  clear  case  of 

undesigned  agreement    between    totally  independent  writers. 

His  refer-        i.  In  his  accouut  of  the  war  just  mentioned  above,  Jose- 

ence  to  •'  ' 

Ba'ust"'  V^^^^  ^'^y^  ^^'^^  Herod's  army  was  destroyed  ;  aud  that  some  of 
the  Jews  regarded  this  disaster  as  a  punishment  for  the  mur- 
der of  "  John  who  was  called  the  Baptist."  He  then  speaks 
of  John  as  a  "  good  man,"  as  one  who  "  commanded  tlie  Jews 
to  exercise  virtue,  both  as  to  righteousness  towards  one 
another,  and  piety  toward  God,  and  so  to  come  to  baptism." 
He  gives  a  false  interpretation  of  John's  baj)tism,  but  one 
about  as  near  the  truth  as  might  l.>e  expected  from  a  Pharisee, 
and  then  says  that  Herod,  fearing  lest  John  might  raise  a 
rebellion,  sent  him  as  a  prisoner  to  the  castle  of  Machferus, 
aud  there  beheaded  liim.^  .Here  the  agieement  in  matters  of 
fact  with  well  known  |)assages  in  our  iirst  three  Gospels  is 
complete,  ^vhile  the  omissions,  and  the  motive  ascribed  to 
Herod,  show  that  the  account  given  by  Josephus  is  totally 
independent  of  the  other  three. 

Hisac  c.  Josei)hus  ffivcs  the  only  account  which  has  come  down 

COUIltOf  I  O  ,  ,       r  1  T  1> 

therteati.  innn   the    first    century  of  the    death    of    .Jauies,    the    Lord  s 

oi  James  ■'  i         i  • 

»'ie  brother  ;  and  in  the  course  of  it  he  calls  him  *'  the  brother  of 

younger.  ' 

Jesus  who  was  called  Christ,  whose  name  was  James."-'  The 
introduetioh  of  tlie.se  two  names  in  this  informal  way  shows 
clearly  that  he  regarded  them  as  well  known  to  his  readers  ; 
and  as  the  readers  for  whoin  ho  wrote  were  the  (troeks  and 
I  Ant.,  xviii.  ."i.  1.         -  .{>i'.,  xvii.  -i,  2.         ^  /'(..  xx.  '.».  1. 


NEW    TESTAMKNT    BOOKS.  9 

Romans  of  liis  day,  it  shows  that  the.-c  two  persons,  and 
especial  1\'  Jesus,  were  then  well  known  in  the  heathen  worhl, 
just  as  the  Scriptures  represent  them. 

d.  There  is  another  passage  in  Josephus,  the  genuineness  ^^jj*j<^^j 
of    which  has  been  so  much  disputed,  and  the  spuriousncss  of"'*^*"^ 
which  has  been  conceded  by  so  many  eminent  defenders  of  the 
fiiitli,  that  we  may  not  base  a  confident  argument  on  it,  and 
yet  it   should   be  known    to  those  who   make   any    study   of 
Evidences.     We  copy  it  as  follows  : 

"  Now  ther»  was  about  this  time  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  it  be 
lawful  to  call  him  a  man  ;  for  he  was  a  doer  of  wonderful  works, 
a  teacher  of  such  men  as  receive  the  truth  with  pleasure.  He 
drew  over  to  him  both  many  of  the  Jews  and  many  of  the 
Gentiles.  He  was  Christ.  And  when  Pilate,  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  principal  men  among  us,  had  condemned  him  to 
the  cross,  those  who  had  loved  him  at  the  first  did  not  forsake 
him  ;  for  he  appeared  to  them  alive  again  the  third  day  ;  as 
the  divine  prophets  had  foretold  these  and  ten  thousand  other 
wonderful  things  concerning  him.  And  the  tribe  of  Chris- 
tian^, so  named  from  him,  are  not  extinct  at  this  day."  '  As 
the  plan  of  this  work  forbids  the  use  of  doubtful  evidences, 
we  pass  by  this  passage,  ami  refer  those  who  may  wish  to 
study  the  arguments  for  and  against  its  genuineness,  to 
Lardner's  Credibility  for  those  against  it,  and  to  Home's 
Introduction  for  tiiose  in  favor  of  it. 

2.  The  first  Roman  writer  whom  we  cite  in  this  connection  career  o« 

m      •  XT  Tiicitus. 

is  Tacitus.  Ha  was  born  about  the  middle  of  the  first 
century  ;  was  chosen  prsetor  of  Rome  in  the  year  88,  and 
consul  in  07.  He  was  author  of  a  Description  of  (icrmany  ; 
a  Life  of  Agricola  (his  father-in-law) ;  a  Histor}-  of  Rome 
from  Galba  to  Domitian  ;  and  .Vnnals  of  Rome,  from  Tiberius 
to  Nero.  He  is  one  of  the  most  famous  and  most  reliable  of 
Roman  writers,  and  siich  is  the  superiority  of  his  style  that 
the  first  two  of  his  works  are  used  as  text-books  of  Latin  in 
our  best  colleges.  He  closed  his  career  as  an  author  about  the 
year  100. 

In  giving  an  account  of  a  fire  that  cousunit'd  about  one- 
'  Ant.,  xviii.  '^    " 


10  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

TOunt'of    ^^^^^  ^f  ^^^'^  '"  ^^^  reig"  "f  Nero,  coupled  with  the  belief 

pcKccu-   among  the  people  that  it  was  started  aud  kept  up  by  Nero 

tion.        himself,  Tacitus  says  that  Nero  sought  to  turn  this  suspicion 

away  from  himself  to   the  Ch*^istiaus  in   the  city,  whom   he 

accused  and  tortured  as  if  they  were  guilty.     In  describing 

the  Christians,  he  slates  the  following  facts:   first,  that  tliere 

were  Christians  in  Judea  before  the  death    of  Christ,  and  that 

they  derived  their  name  from  his;  second,  that  Christ  suffered 

death    under   Pontius  Pilate;    third,  that   belief  in   him  was 

checked  for  a  time  by  his  death,  but  that  i^  soon  broke  out 

again  ;  fourth,  that  it  spread  over  Judea,  and  thence  to  Rome ; 

fifth,  that  there  was  a  vast  multitude  of  Christians  in  Eome  at 

the  time  of  the  fire  (a.  d.  64) ;  sixth,  that  Nero  accused  the 

Christians    of  causing    the    fire,    and    punished    them    most 

cruelly  ;  seventh,  that  their  sufferings,  believed  to  be  unjust, 

awakened    the    sympathy    of     the  people    for  them.'     These 

statements  would  be  credited  if  we  had  no  other  evidence  to 

J/^ftjfg"'"^'^  support  them.     In    other    words,    had    the    ^^ew    Testament 

evidence,  failed  to  come  down  to  our  age,  these  statements  alone  would 

1  Tacitus  says,  speaking  of  the  fire  convicted,  not  so  much  of  tlie  crime 
that  consumed  Rome  in  Nero's  of  setting  Rome  on  fire,  as  of  hatred 
time,  and  of  the  general  belief  that  to  mankind.  And  when  they  were 
he  had  caused  it:  "  In  order,  there-  jjut  to  death,  mockery  was  added 
fore,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  report,  he  to  their  sufi'erings;  for  tlioy  were 
lai<l  tlie  guilt  and  inflicted  the  se-  either  disguised  in  the  skins  of  wild 
verest  punishments  upon  a  set  of  beasts  and  worried  to  death  by 
people  who  were  held  in  abhor-  dogs,  or  they  were  clothed  in  some 
rence  for  their  crimes,  an<l  called  by  inflammable  covering,  and  when 
the  vulgar  Christians.  The  foun-  the  day  closed  were  burned  as 
der  of  that  name  was  Christ,  who  lights  to  illumine  the  night.  Nero 
sufTered  death  in  the  reign  of  Tibe-  lent  his  own  gardens  for  this  exhi- 
rius,  under  liis  procurator,  Pontius  bition,  and  also  lield  the  shows  of 
Pilate.  This  pernicious  supersti-  tlie  circus,  mingling  with  the  peo- 
tion,tlnis  checked  fora  while,  l)r()ke  pie  in  the  dress  of  a  charioteer,  or 
out  again  ;  and  spread  not  only  over  observing  the  spectacle  from  his 
Judea,  where  the  evil  originated,  chariot.  Wherefore,  although  those 
but  til  rough  Rome  also,  whither  all  who  suffered  were  guilty,  and  de- 
things  horribl((  and  shameful  find  serving  of  some  extraordinary 
their  way  and  are  jjracti.sed.  Ac-  punishment,  yet  they  came  to  be 
cordinj/ly  the  first  who  were  appre-  pitied,  as  victims  not  so  much  to 
hendetl  confesseil,  and  then  on  their  the  Dublic  good,  as  to  the  cruelty 
information  a  vast   iiiultitiuli-  were  of  one  man."     (Annals,  xv.  44.) 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOIJKS. 


11 


have  furnished  an  account  of  the  origin,  progress  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  church,  in  a  general  outline,  substantially  as  we 
have  them  in  our  New  Testament.  This  information  comes 
to  us  through  a  hostile  witness,  as  appears  from  his  bitter 
words  concerning  the  Christians,  saying  that  they  were  "  held 
in  abhorrence  for  their  crimes ; "  calling  their  faitii  a  "  per- 
nicious superstition,"  and  classing  it  among  things  "  horrible 
and  shameful ;  "  and  charging  them  with  "  hatred  to  mankind." 
He  even  says  that  "  those  who  suffered  were  guilty,  and 
deserving  of  some  extraordinary  punishment."  These  oppro- 
brious expressions  also  show  that  as  respects  the  facts  in 
Christian  history  which  he  relates,  he  was  an  independent  wit- 
ness ;  for  if  he  had  obtained  his  information,  even  in  part, 
from  tlie  New  Testament  writers,  he  could  not  have  enter- 
tained  the  opinions  which  he  expresses.  So  far,  then,  as  he 
supports  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament,  he  furnishes 
independent  and  liostile  testimony,  which,  according  to  Canon 
v.,  very  greatly  enhances  the  probability  of  the  facts  them- 
selves. 

It  may  be  well  to  remark  in  passing,  that  this  passage  in[^gon"he 
Tacitus  convicts  Josephus  of  suppressing  information  concern- [."jjjose-*^^ 
ing  Jesus  and  the  Church;   for  if  this  heathen  writer,  living'^  "^" 
in    Rome,    and    having    no    personal    knowledge    of    Jewish 
affairs,  was  so  well  informed,  Josephus,  who  lived  in  Judea, 
and  was  surrounded  on  every  side  by  Christian  churches  dur- 
ing   the    first    thirty  years    of  his  life,  must   have    been   still 
better  informed,  and  must  have  suppressed  much  the  greater 
part  of  what  he  knew,  even  if  the  disputed   passage    in   his 
writings  is  genuine.     In  doing  so  he  suppressed  the  most  im- 
portant part  of  the  history  of  his  own  generation.     This  is 
accounted  for  by  his  position  as  a  Pharisee,  and  his  consequent 
hostility  to  the  cause  of  Christ. 

3.   The    next    Roman  writer   whom   we    (piotc    is    Pl»"y»  ;^o1iSto( 
called  "the  younger"  to  distinguish  him  from  an  uncle  who  ^'''"y- 
bore   the  same  name,  and  who  was  also  a  man  of  note.     He 
was  born  at  Como,  near  Milan  in    Italy,  a.  d.  61  or  62.      He 
was  one  of  the  most  elegant  of  Roman  writers,  but  he  devoted 
his  literarv  clToris  rhirflv  to  epistohiry  \vritin|i.      lie  witnessed 


12  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

the  eruption  of  Mount  Vesuvius,  which  in  the  year  79  over- 
whelmed the  cities  of  Herculaueum  and  Pompeii,  and  in 
which  his  uncle  perished.  He  wrote  in  two  letters  to  Tacitus, 
who  was  his  friend  and  correspondent,  a  very  graphic  account 
of  that  tragic  event,  and  the  only  one  that  has  come  down 
to  posterity.  He  was  a  consul  of  Rome  in  the  year  100, 
and  was  proconsul  of  Bythinia  under  Trajan  in  the  years  106- 
108. 
mVe^em-  ^Vhen  he  entered  on  the  administration  of  Bythinia,  he 
5taj*ati.  found  a  fierce  persecution  by  government  authority  in  prog- 
ress, and  for  a  time  he  continued  it;  but  finally  he  wrote  a 
letter  to  the  emperor  which  furnishes  the  following  points  of 
information  :  first,  a  vast  number  of  Christians  were  then  in 
Bythinia,  of  every  age  and  rank,  of  both  sexes,  and  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  ;  second,  such  was  the  influence  of  their 
teaching,  that  the  heathen  temples  were  almost  deserted,  and 
the  victims  for  heathen  sacrifices  could  hardly  find  a  purcha- 
ser ;  third,  Pliny  was  constrained,  on  account  of  the  vast 
number  of  victims  of  the  persecution,  to  suspend  it  and  write 
to  the  emperor  for  further  instruction;  fourth,  after  the  most 
searching  inquiry,  including  the  torture  of  certain  Cliristians 
to  force  confessions  from  them,  he  had  found  no  vices  ai))oug 
them ;  fifth,  they  had  sufiFered  for  the  name  of  being  Chris- 
tians, without  the  charge  of  any  crime — a  procedure  of  which 
Pliny  doubted  the  propriety;  sixth,  those  who  were  Roman 
citizens  were  sent  to  Rome;  seventh,  on  a  stated  day  they 
were  accustomed  to  hold  two  meetings,  one  for  singing  "  in 
concert"  hymns  to  Christ,  and  for  making  vows  to  live 
righteously  ;  and  the  other  for  eating  a  "  harmless  meal."  ' 

'  Pliny's  Letter  to  Trajan :  "It  is  ])ui)ishment.      1    liave,   niori'over, 

my  custom,  sir,  to  refer  to  you  all  hesitated  not  a  little  whether  any 

thin^^s  aljout  which  I  am  in  douht.  distir)ction  was  to  be   made  in  re- 

For  who  is  more  capable  of  rlirect-  sjiect  to  ajje,  or  whether  those  of 

ing   my   hesitancy,    or   instructing  tender  years  were  to  be  treated  the 

my  ignorance?     I  have  never  been  same  as  adults;    whether   rept-nt- 

j)re8ent  at  any  trials  of  tlie  Chris-  ance  entitles   them    to   jjardon,  or 

lians;  consecjuently  I  do  not  know  whether  it  shall  avail  nothing  for 

what  is  the  nature  of  tlieir  crimes,  him  who  has  once  been  a  Chris- 

or  the  usual  strictness  of  their  ex-  tian,  to  renounce  his  error ;  whether 

ainination,  or  tlie  fseveritv  n\  iheir  the  name  itself,  even   witliont  anv 


New  testament  books. 


13 


These  details,  though  descriptive  of  scones  that  transpired  f^°y^^^°' 
after  the  close   of  the   New  Testament   canon,  are  strikingly  "^^°'^^'' 

rrirne,  should  subjet-t  tlieiu  to  pun-  owned  that  tliey  had  been  Chrife- 

ishment,  or  only  the  crimes  con  tians,  but  said  they  had  renounced 

nected  with  the  name.  their  error,  some   three   years  be- 

"  In  the  mean  time  1  liave  pur-  fore,  others  more,  and  a  few  even  as 

sued  this  course  toward  those  who  long  ago   as  twenty  years.     They 

have  been   brought   before    me   as  all  did   homage  to  your  statue  and 

(.Miristian.s.      I    have    asked    them  the  images  of  the  gods,  and  at  the 

whether  they   were  Christians;   if  same    time    reviled    the    name    of 

tliey     confessed,     I     repeated     tlie  Christ.       'Ihey    declared    that  the 

question  a  second  and  a  third  time,  whole  oi   their  guilt  oi  error  was 

adding  threats  of  punishment.     If  that  they  were  accustomed  to  meet 

they    still    persevered,    I    ordered  on  a  stated  day  before  it  was  light, 

them   to  be   led   away  to  punish-  and  to  sing  in  concert  a  hymn  of 

ment ;  for  I  could  not  doubt,  what-  praise  to  Christ  as  God,  and  to  bind 

ever  the  nature  of  their  profession  themselves  by  an  oath,  not  for  the 

might  be,  that  a  stubborn  and  un-  perpetration    of    any    wickedness, 

yielding    obstinacy    certainly    de-  but  that  they   would    not  commit 

served  to  be  punished.     There  were  any  theft,  robbery,  or  adultery,  nor 

others  also  under  the  like  infatua-  violate     their     word,     nor     refuse 

tion ;  but  as  tiiey  were  Roman  citi-  when  called  upon  to  restore  any- 

zens,  I  directed  them  to  be  sent  to  thing    committed    to    their    trust, 

the  capital.     Bat  the  crime  spreaii,  After   this  they  were   accustomed 

as  is  wont  to  happen,  even  while  to  separate  and  then  to  re-asseml)le 

the   persecutions    were    going   on,  to  eat  in  common  a  harmless  meal, 

and  numerous  instances  presented  Even  this,  however,  they  ceased  to 

themselves.     An   information  was  do,  after  my  edict,  in  which,  agree- 

I)resented  to  me  without  any  name  ably  to  your  commands,  I  forbade 

subscribed,  accusing  a  large  num-  the   meeting  of  secret  assemblies. 

ber  of   persons,   who  denied   that  After  hearing  tliis  I  thought  it  the 

they  were  Christians,  or  had  ever  more    necessary    to    find    out    the 

been.    They  repeated  after  me  an  truth,   by   putting   to    the    torture 

invocation  to  the  gods,  and   made  two  female  slaves,  who  were  called 

ofTerings    with     frankincense    and  deaconesses.     Hut  I  cnuld  discover 

wine  before  your  statue,  which  I  nothiufr  I'ut  a  jx-rverse  and  extrav- 

had  ordered  to  be  brought  for  this  agant    superstition  ;  and  therefore 

purpose,  together  with  the  images  1  deferred  all  ftirther  proceedings 

of  the  gods;  and    moreover   they  until   I   could    consult    with   yi>u. 

reviled  Christ;  whereas  those  who  For    the    matter    appears    to    me 

are  truly  Christians,  it  is  said,  can  worthy  of  such  consultation,  espe- 

not  be  forced  to  any  of  these  things,  cially  on   account  of   the   number 

I  thonght.thereforc, that  they  ought  of  those  who  are  involved  in  peril, 

to    be    discharged.      Others,    who  For   many   of  every  age,  of  every 

were    accused    by    witnesses    con-  rank,   and    of   either   sex,   are   ex- 

fessed   that  they  were  Chiistians,  posed,  and  will  be  exposed  to  dan- 

but   afterwards   denied    it.     Some  ger.     Nor  has  the  contairion  of  this 


14  CKEDIBII.ITY    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

confirmatory  of"  the  representations  in  that  book.  Tlie  charac- 
ter of  Christians  set  forth  in  the  two  documents,  their  stated 
meetings  "  for  a  harmless  meal "  (the  Lord's  supper),  and  for  the 
worship  of  Christ,  their  rapid  increase  where  the  gospel  was 
preached,  and  their  causeless  persecution,  are  the  same.  The 
sending  of  those  who  were  Roman  citizens  to  Rome  for  trial, 
is  parallel  with  this  experience  of  the  apostle  Paul ;  and  as  to 
other  particulars,  we  learn  from  the  apostle  Peter  that  there 
were  Christians  in  Bythinia  in  his  day,  and  that  they  suffered 
'•  for  the  name  of  Christ  " — they  suffered  "  as  Christians," 
even  when  they  were  charged  with  no  crime  (I.  Pet.  iv.  12-19). 
Conciu-  These  testimonies  from  independent  and    hostile  writers 

sioii  from  ^ 

these  tes-  qq^  only  coufirm  the  facts  attested  by  them  in  common  with 
the  New  Testament  writers,  so  as  to  place  them  beyond  all 
doubt,  but  they  go  farther :  they  give  good  ground  to  believe 
that  if  the  details  mentioned  by  tiiese  secular  writers  had  been 
more  numerous,  the  points  of  agreement  would  have  extended 
proportionately  ;  in  other  words,  by  showing  that  our  New 
Testament  writers  are  accurate  so  far  as  we  are  able  thus  to 
test  them,  they  justify  the  inference  that  they  are  accurate 
throughout  their  narratives.  It  should  be  noted,  however, 
that  had  we  found  some  discrepancies  between  these  two 
classes  of  writers,  the  preference  would  belong  of  right  to 
those  of  the  New  Testament,  seeing  that  they  wore  the  better 
informed  on  the  main  subject. 

superstition  been  confined  to  the  and  the  sacred  solemnities,  so  lung 

cities  only,  but  it  has  extended  to  interrupted,  are  again  revived  ;  and 

the  villages,  and  even  to  the  conn-  the   victims,    which    could   hardly 

try.      Nevertheless,    it  still    seems  find  a  purchaser,  are  now  every- 

possible  to  arrest  the  evil,  and  to  where  in  demand.     From  this  it  is 

apply  a   remedy.     At    least   it  is  easy  to  imagine  what  a  multitude 

very    evident    that    the    temples,  of  men  might  be  reclaimed,  if  par- 

which    had    already    been    almost  don  should  be  ofi'ered  to  those  wl)o 

deserted,  begin   to   be  frequenteil,  repent."     {Epistlefi  of  Pliny,  \.\)1). 


CHAPTER  III. 

EVIDENCE  FROM  INCIDENTAL   ACJKEEMENT   WITH  OTHER 

WRITINGS. 

In  Chapterll.  wernnsidcrc'cl  tlieevidential  force  of  certain 
points  of  agreement  between  the  New  Testament  writers  and 
others,  when  both  were  making  formal  statements ;  now  we 
consider    points-  of  incidental    agreement,    in    which    formal  Nature  of 

,  p  .  1  ,     *hi8  evi- 

statements  are  made   by  the  one  class  of  writers,  and  only  deuce, 
allusions  to  the  same  things  by  tiie  other.     In  the  instances 
to  be  cited  the  formal   information  is  furnished  by  secular 
writers,  and  the  allusions  are  made  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament. 

I.  Tlie  j>eriod  covered  l)y  New  Testament  history  was 
characterized  by  frequent  and  complicated  changes  in  the-^ii'»sions 
political  affairs  of  Judea  and  the  countries  connected  with  it. ''^L 
None  of  these  are  formally  described  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  it  contains  many  allusions  to  them  of  an  incidental 
and  isolated  kind,  while  they  are  all  described  in  detail  by 
Josephu.s.  Here,  then,  is  an  excellent  opportunity  to  test  the 
accuracy  of  the  former  writer.s  ;  for  jjerfect  agreement  here  is 
attainable  only  through  perfect  accuracy  of  information  and 
of  statement  on  both  sides. 

This  test  is  the  more  severe  from  the  fact  the  New  Testa- 
ment allusions  to  these  affairs  are  so  brief,  and  so  void  of 
explanation,  as  to  leave  the  reader  who  has  no  other  source 
of  information  in  great  confusion  concerning:  them.  The  ■^""s';"'"' 
history  opens,  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  under  "  Herod  the  ^'  ''^ 
king."  In  the  second  chapter  of  Matthew,  Herod  the  king 
dies;  yet  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  Herod  appears  again,  and 
is  called  both  "the  king"  and  "the  tetrarch  ;"  and  in  the 

(16) 


16  CUEDIBILITY    OF    THE 

twelth  chapter  of  Acts,  "Herod  the  king"  beheads  the 
apostle  James.  All  this  is  said  without  a  word  of  explana- 
tion. Again,  at  the  close  of  the  second  chapter  of  Matthew 
Archelaus  is  king  of  Judea ;  in  the  twenty-seventh  chapter 
Pilate  is  governor  of  the  same;  in  the  twelth  of  Acts,  Herod 
is  king  of  the  same;  and  in  the  twenty-third,  Felix  is  its 
governor.  Not  a  word  of  explanation.  Yet  again,  Augustus 
Caesar  issues  a  decree  just  previous  to  the  birth  of  Jesus,  that 
all  the  world  shall  be  enrolled;  when  John  the  Baptist  begins 
his  ministry  it  is  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  Csesar;  yet 
Paul  many  years  afterward  makes  an  appeal  from  Festus  to 
Augustus.  (Luke  ii.1-7;  iii.  1,2;  Acts  xxv.  21).  Here,  in 
reference  to  kings,  governors,  and  emperors,  there  is  both 
confusion  and  apparent  contradiction.  It  is  impossible  for 
one  who  has  not  made  a  special  study  of  the  political  history 
of  the  times,  to  get  through  this  tangled  network  of  illusions 
understandingly ;  but  when  we  consult  the  formal  history 
con-  furnished  by  the  unbelieving  Jewish  historian,  we  find  cverv 
and  ex-    one  of  them  strictly  correct.     As  to  the  Herods,  we  find   that 

plaineil  •'  ' 

pl^^^^'  the  one  under  whom  John  and  Jesus  were  born,  and  who  soon 
afterward  died,  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Plerod  as  ruler  of 
part  of  his  father's  dominions,  with  the  titles,  king  and  tet- 
rarch;  and  that  the  Herod  who  beheaded  James  was  a  grand- 
son of  the  first,  made  king  by  Claudius  Cjesar.  As  to  the 
rulers  of  Judea,  we  learn  that  Archelaus  who  succeeded  his 
father  Herod  as  king  of  that  pait  of  the  ancestral  dominion, 
was  deposed  by  the  Romans  when  lie  had  reigned  only  ten  years, 
and  governors,  or  more  ])ropcrly  jn'ocurators,  were  appointed 
to  rub.'  over  Judea.  Pilate  was  the  fifth  of  these  in  succes- 
sion. Afterward  the  Herod  who  appears  as  king  at  the  time 
of  the  death  of  James  was  made  king  as  a  personal  favor  by 
Claudius  Cfesar ;  but  at  the  death  of  Herod  the  coiuitry  was 
again  j)la(^ed  under  procurators,  of  whom  Felix  was  one. 
.\s  to  the  Augu.stu8  Csesar  who  npiKurs  in  the  narratives  of 
Luke  as  if  ho  was  dead  and  yet  tdivr  agnin,  we  learn  that 
the  emperor  called  Augustus  in  the  second  instance  was  Nero, 
who  bore  the  tith'  Ca'sar  Augustus  Nero,  and  that  his  flat- 
terers frequently  styh-d  him  Augustus. 


NEW    TKSTAMENT    BOOKS.  17 

In  the  writings  of  Lnkcund  Jolm  we  find  another  allusion,  i^j'^;;jjj^j; 
pr,rtly  of  a  political  and  partly  of  a  religious  character,  which  'ihJ'hVgh 
furnishes  similar  evidence.  It  is  the  allusion  to  the  high  {i[e''sub- 
prieslhood  of  Annus  and  Caiaphas.  Luke  (iii.  2)  represents  ^'''^'" 
the  two  as  being  high  priests  at  the  same  time,  although  the 
law  of  Moses  allowed  only  one  man  at  a  time  to  occupy  the 
office.  He  also,  in  another  place,  mentions  the  two  together, 
calling  Annas  the  high  priest,  and  omitting  the  title  from  the 
name  of  Caiaphas  (Acts  v.  G).  John  indirectly  recognizes 
Annas  in  the  same  light  by  representing  the  band  that  ar- 
rested Jesus  as  taking  him  to  Annas  first,  and  adding  the 
remark  that  Caia])has,  the  son-in-law  of  Annas,  was  *'  high 
priest  that  year,"  as  if  the  high  priest  was  appointed  annually 
(xviii./lo.  See  also  xi.  49).  Inasmuch  as  the  high  priest  was  ap- 
pointed for  life,  and  there  could  be  l)ut  one  at  a  time,  these 
two  writers  appear  to  have  I'allen  into  two  mistakes  in  these 
allusions,  and  the  charge  that  they  have  done  so  has  been  used 
as  proof  that  these  three  books  were  written  by  men  so  ignor- 
ant of  Jewish  affairs  as  to  suppose  that  there  might  be  two 
high  priests  at  om;  time,  and  that  the  office  was  filled  annually. 
But  it  so  happens  that  Josephus,  in  his  elaborate  account  of 
Jewish  afiiiirs,  furnishes  facts  which  exj)lain  these  apparently 
incorreot  allusions,  and  .show  them  to  be  strictly  accurate. 
From  him  we  learn  that  Annas  was  the  rightful  high  priest  by 
inheritance  in  the  direct  line  from  Aaron,  but  that  he  had 
been  unlawfully  deposed  by  Valerius  Gratus,  Pilate's  prede- 
cessor, who  appointed  first  one  and  then  another  in  his  place ; 
and  of  these  Joseph  Caiaphas  was  the  fourth  (Ant.  xviii.  2,  2). 
Under  these  circumstances  there  were  two  high  priests,  one 
holding  the  office  by  right  of  succession,  a  right  which  could 
not  be  disregarded  by  those  who  feared  (iod,  and  the  other 
exercising  the  functions  of  the  office  by  virtue  of  military 
interference.  The  representations  of  Luke  and  John  are 
therefore  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  facts.  As  to  the  re- 
mark that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  ''  that  year,"  it  is  justilied 
by  statements  of  Josephus,  that  Valerius  Grains,  after  ap- 
])ointing  his  first  successor  to  Annas  deprived  him  of  the  of- 
fice "  in  ;i   little  tiino,"  and  that    his   next    two   appointments 


18  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

were  made  at  intervals  of  one  year  each.     It  was  this  rapid 

and  unlawful  succession  of  appointments  to  the  office  which 

both  suggested  and  justiBed  the  remark. 

aUeged  ^^  *^^'^  Uniform   accuracy  of  allusions  to  political    aifairs 

tums^'      there  are  two  apparent  exceptions,  which  have  been  set  forth 

by  unbelievers  as  historical  blunders.     The  first  is  the  state- 

the^n^    ment  of  Luke  concerning  an  enrollment  ordered  by  Augustus 

und™r^""  Csesar  just  previous  to  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  consequent 

li"'""'    journey  ot  Joseph  and    Mary   to  Bethlehem    (Luke  ii.  1-5). 

Three  points  of  objection  have  been  urged  which  are  worthy 

of  consideration : 

First,  it  is  said  that  tiiere  is  no  evidence  other  tlian  Luke's 
statement,  that  Augustus  issued  such  a  decree.  This  objec- 
tion is  without  force;  for  it  consists  in  nothing  more  than  an 
array  of  the  silence  of  other  writers  against  the  positive  state- 
ment of  Luke,  and  this,  too,  when  the  silence  is  accounted  for 
by  the  consideration  that  other  writers  had  no  such  occasion 
for  mentioning  it,  and  no  occasion  at  all  that  we  know  of. 
Second,  Luke  represents  the  enrollment  as  having  been  made 
when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria,  w-hereas  it  appears 
from  Josephus  that  he  was  not  governor  of  Syria  till  after 
the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  which  occurred  not  less  than  ten 
years  subsequent  to  the  birth  of  Jesus.'  It  is  here  alleged 
that  in  connecting  it  with  the  birth  of  Jesus  he  has  made  a 
chronological  mistake.  But  a  careful  inspection  of  Luke's 
language  shows  that  he  connects  only  the  issuing  of  the  de- 
cree, and  the  l)eginning  of  its  enforcement  in  Judea,  with  the 
birth  of  Jesus;  and  that  only  the  making  of  the  enri)llment 
as  a  whole  is  connected  with  the  governorship  of  Quirinius. 
Moreover,  the  statement,  "This  first  enrollment  was  made 
when  ('Quirinius  was  governing  Syria,"  is  parenthetical,  and  it 
indicates  a  distinction  in  time  between  the  issuing  of  the 
decree  and  the  making  of  the  enrollment.  Now,  if  Luke's 
contemporaries  knew  that  there  was  an  interval  of  ten  years 
between  the  issuing  of  this  decree  and  its  general  execution 
in  the  empire,  but  tliat  it  was  partially  executed,  at  least  in 
Judea,  at  tlie  time  it  was  issued,  no  thought  of  a  chntnologi- 
'  A)iliq>iilirs,  xvii.  13,  2;    xviii.  1, 1. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  19 

cal  mistake  could  have  occured  to  them  on  reading  this  pas- 
sage ;  and  as  it  so  happens  that  we  are  in  posst?&siou  of  this 
knowledge  given  by  Luke,  no  such  thouglit  should  occur  to 
us.'  Third,  it  is  urged  that  the  execution  of  the  decree 
could  not  have  reipiired  Joseph  and  other  Jews,  as  stated  by 
Luke,  to  go  every  man  to  his  own  ancestral  city.  Probably 
this  is  true  as  respects  the  letter  of  the  decree  itself;  ImiI  cer- 
tainly such  a  procedure  was  not  forbidden  in  the  decree  ;  and  if 
the  Jewish  polity  required  it,  it  is  most  unreasonable  to  pro- 
nounce it  incredible.  That  the  Mosaic  law  of  inheritance, 
coupled  with  the  restoration  of  lands  which  had  been  sold, 
at  the  end  of  every  fifty  years,  to  the  heirs  of  the  original 
owners,  required  a  registry  to  be  kept  in  every  town  of  the 
land-owners  in  the  vicinity,  is  a  well  known  fact ;  and  this  to- 
gether with  the  fondness  of  the  Jews  from  other  considera- 
tions for  keeping  tlieir  genealogies,  is  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  circumstance,  without  supposing  that  there  was  anything 
said  about  it  in  tlie  decree.  The  fact  that  Joseph  took  Mary 
with  him  in  her  present  condition,  may  be  accounted  for, 
either  because  he  wanted  her  under  his  immediate  care  in  the 
trial  through  which  she  was  about  to  pass,  or  because,  being 
an  heiress  with  a  ])rospective  interest  in  the  ancestral  inherit- 
ance, it  was  needful  that  her  name  be  enrolled  as  well  as  his. 
There  is  certainly  nothing  so  strange  in  this  circum^stance  as 
to  justify  a  doubt  of  its  credibility. 

The  second  of  the  two  allusions  which  are  held  to  be  mis-(?^"*<^ 

the  Mme 

takes,  is  that  in  the  speech  of  Gamaliel  (Acts  v.  36,  37)  to  the^^^Theu- 
c:\rcers  of  Theudas  and  Judas  of  Galilee.  In  this  passage 
Theudas  is  represented  as  j)receding  Judas  of  Galilee,  whereas 
Josephus  describes  a  Theudas  whose  career  was  quite  similar, 
but  who  figured  much  later  than  Judas.*  It  is  charged  that 
the  author  of  Acts  put  this  speech  into  the  lips  of  Gamaliel, 
Theudas  not  having  yet  figured  when  the  speech  is  sjiid  to 
have  been  made;  and  that  in  doing  so  he  betrays  the  fraud 
by  his  chron(doi;ieal  blunder.     But  this  charge  depends  alto- 

^  For  a  more  olahnrato  dificiission  C.  Cook,  Sprnkrr'x  Commrntnr!/,  i)i 
of  tliis  question,  jiro  aiul  row,]  sor  h^t^o,  and  authors  thore  referred  ti>. 
'^trnuss,   AV/r   Life,  i\.  '2'2-2();  and  V.        ^ .[nlir/ititir.t,  xviii.   1,  1.:  xx.  ■">,  1. 


20  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

gether  on  the  identity  of  the  Theudas  mentioned  by  Luke 
with  the  one  mentioned  by  Josephus.  If  there  may  have 
l)een  an  earlier  Theudas,  answering  to  the  account  given  by 
Gamaliel,  then  Luke  may  be  accurate  both  in  his  facts  and 
his  chronology.  Now  it  so  happens  that  Josephus,  though  he 
mentions  no  other  Theudas  as  heading  an  insurrection,  docs 
mention  a  number  of  insurrections  occurring  at  the  right 
period  to  suit  the  remark  of  Gamaliel,  without  mentioning 
their  leaders.  He  says  of  the  period  just  preceding  the  de- 
position of  Archelaus:  "Now  at  that  time  there  were  ten 
thousand  other  disorders  in  Judea,  which  were  like  tumults, 
l)ecause  a  great  number  put  themselves  in  a  warlike  posture, 
either  out  of  hopes  of  gain  to  themselves,  or  out  of  enmity  to 
the  Jews;"  and  more  directly  to  the  point,  he  says:  "And 
now  Judea  was  full  of  robberies ;  and  as  the  several  c(»mpan- 
ies  of  the  seditious  lighted  upon  any  one  to  lead  them,  he  was 
created  a  king  immediately,  in  order  to  do  mischief  to  the 
public."  '  Tiiat  one  of  these  loaders  may  have  been  named 
Theudas  is  not  at  all  improbable  in  itself;  and  when  we 
have  the  statement  of  a  veracious  writer  that  he  was,  it  is  a 
most  unjust  procedure,  in  the  absence  of  all  conflicting  evi- 
dence, to  charge  him  witli  error.  No  ordinarily  veracious 
writer,  not  a  Bible  writer,  would  be  so  charged, 
fhis^ev?-'  This  unfailing  accuracy,  often   appearing  in   the  midst  of 

dence.  •what  at  first  seems  to  be  confusion  and  contradiction,  not 
only  evinces  the  historical  reliability  of  the  New  Testament 
writers,  but  it  shows,  by  the  absence  of  explanation  where 
explanation  to  us  of  a  later  age  seems  needed,  that  they  were  con- 
scious of  telling  a  story  w'hich  would  be  rocognized  as  true 
by  the  peoj)le  of  their  own  generation — a  story  which  needed 
no  bolstering  up  in  order  to  sustain  itself.  Tf  they  had  writ- 
ten, as  has  been  alleged,  in  a  later  generation,  they  would 
have  felt  the  necessity  of  many  explanations  whi'-h  they  have 
omitted,  an<l  by  this  very  circumstance  they  would  have 
betrayed  themselves;  but,  writing  as  they  did  in  the  midst 
of  the  gcneratif)n  wherein  all  these  political  changes  took 
place,  the  known  intelligence  of  their  readers  forbade  the 
'  !,</.,  xvii,  10,  4.  8. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    H(JUK.S.  21 

introcl  action     of     explanations,     or     rather     precluded     the 
thought  of  them. 

II.  Under  the  Greek  and  Roman  dominions,  the  former  ;^'J.^8j|ons 
beginning  about  b.  c  333,  and  the  latter  about  b.  c.  60,  Jew-'^'^'"^- 
isli  coins  went  out  of  use  in  Palestine,  and  those  of  these  two 
nations  took  their  place,  both  sets  being  in  circulation  at  the 
same  time.  There  is  no  account  of  this  change  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  there  are  many  allusions  in  it  to  the  coins  in 
current  use,  and  as  such  a  mixture  of  coins  is  necessarily  a 
source  of  confusion,  incidental  references  to  thera  furnish  a 
very  good  test  of  a  writer's  accuracy. 

(1).  The  shekel,  the  coin  in  most  common  use  among  the^i^^*^^^" 
early  Jews,  and  the  one  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  is  just  as  it  must  have  been  if  these  writers  were  well 
posted  in  the  affairs  of  Palestine  at  the  time  of  which  they 
write ;  but  if  they  were  pretenders,  writing  at  a  later  age,  and 
after  the  Jewish  nation  had  been  dispersed,  they  could  not 
have  been  thoroughly  familiar  with  sueli  matters,  and  they 
would  naturally  have  adopted  the  phraseology  of  the  Old 
Testament.     This  they  never  do. 

(2),  Where,  according  to  the  supposition  just  mentioned, 
the  Jewish  half-siiekel  would  have  been  mentioned,  that  is,  in  Ij'r^p^,',^^ 
connection  with  the  poll  tax  for  tlie  expenses  of  the  temple 
(Ex.  XXX.  15),  the  collector  of  this  tax,  in  asking  Jesus  for  it, 
calls  it  the  didrachma,  a  Greek  coin  of  nearly  but  not  exactly 
the  same  value;  and  when  Jesus,  in  order  to  procure  the 
money  to  pay  for  Peter  and  himself,  sends  the  latter  to  catch  a 
fish  and  find  the  money  in  its  mouth,  he  tells  him  lie  will  find  a 
stater,  anotlier  Greek  coin  twice  the  value  of  the  didrachma, i''^'-''^ 
and  nearly  tlie  value  of  the  shekel.      (Matt.  xvii.  24-27). 

(3).  The  two  coins  which  the  j)0()r  widow  cast  into  the 
treasury,  called  mites  in  our  version,  were  pieces  of  the  small- 
est Greek  copper  coin,  called  the  Irpton,  a  coin  in  use  at 
the  present  day  in  Greece;  and  Mark,  h  st  his  readers  might 
not  know  the  value  of  Greek  coins,  tells  them  that  the  two 
were  equal  to  the  Roman  quadram  (xii.  42).  How  could 
this    little    matter    have    been    .m)    accurately    represented,    if 


22  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

Mark  liad  not  been  botli  a  well  informtd  and  a  very  carelul 

writer  ? 

lufol^''"'^"        i^)'  ^"    stating   the    value    of    two     sparrows,    Matthew 

rans!        resorts  to  Roman  coinage  to  get  the  exact  amount,  and  says 

that  they  sold  for  an  assarius,  the  piece  next  in  value  above 

the  quadrans.     Here,  that  we  may  see  the  extreme  care  for 

accuracy,  we    should   observe   that   the   quadrans  was  worth 

about  half  a  cent  of  our  money,  and  the  assarius  about  a  cent 

and  a  half.     (Matt.  x.  29). 

the  (icna         (5).  As  the  Romaus  had  dominion  in  Palestine  in  the  New 

nus.  ^   ' 

Testament  period,  their  coins  must  have  been  in  more  general 
circulation  than  those  of  the  Greeks;  and  we  should  there- 
fore expect  to  see  them  more  frequently  mentioned  if  our 
writers  are  accurate.  This  is  just  what  we  find ;  for  the 
Roman  denarlu.s,  about  sixteen  cents  of  our  money,  was  the 
most  common  silver  coin  in  use  in  all  the  Roman  empire,  and 
it  is  the  one  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  mentioned  fourteen  times,  and  in  the  following  pas-ages: 
Matt,  xviii.  28;  xx.  2,  9,  13;  xxii.  19;  Mark  vi.  37 ;  xii.  15; 
xiv.  5;  Luke  vii.  41;  x.  35;  xx.  24;  Jno.  vi.  7;  xii.  5; 
Rev.  vi.  6. 
Force  of  Such    accuracv  as    this,  an    accuracy   that    never  fails,  is 

this  evi-  •  '  ' 

dence.      mider  the  circumstances  proof  of  perfect  familiarity  witli  the 

subject,  such  familiarity  as  is  acquired  only  by  i)ersonal  con- 
tact with  it,  and  also  of  such  care  in  writing  as  is  known  only 
among  historians  of  the  first  class. 
t^"jewish        III-  III    t^^    account    of  the    Jewish    people    given    by 
mentsand  J*'sephus,  their  sentiments  on  various  subjects,  and  the  views 
parties:     q{  \\^f.  various  parties  among  them,  are  fully  stated.     The  New 
Testament  writers  do  not  attempt  such  an  account,  but  they 
have  occasion   now  and  then  to  allude  to  these  matters,  and 
these  allusions   furnish   another   test   of  their  accuracy.      We 
make  a  few  specifications. 
|o  their  (1^    We  first  Specify  their  allusions  to  th(!  Jewish  expecta- 

Messiah-  ^'^^  ^^^ '*  Messiah.  It  is  assumed  throughout  the  Gospels  and 
Acts  that  the  Jews  were  looking  for  a  Messiah,  called  in 
Greek  the  Christ,  in  fulfillment  of  prophecies  contained  in  the 
Old  T"stament ;  and  in  many  places  the  unbelieving  Jews  are 


NKW     TESTAMENT    lUiOKS. 


•)•> 


rpprosented  as  giving  utterance  to  this  expectation.  They  had 
fixed  upon  the  place  of  his  birth  (Matt.  ii.  4-6)  ;  they  expected 
him  to  be  a  son  of  David  (xxii.  41-43) ;  they  thought  that  he 
would  settle  all  difficult  questions  (J no.  iv.  25) ;  that  he  would 
restore  the  kingdom  of  David  (Acts  i.  6)  ;  and  that  he  would 
abide  forever  (Juo.  xii.  32-34).  Now  the  existence  of  this 
expectation  among  the  Jews,  thus  tacitly  assumed  by  the  New 
Testament  writers,  is  formally  asserted  by  at  least  three 
secular  writers  of  that  period.  Josephus  says  that  one  reason 
why  the  Jews  were  bold  enough  to  undertake  a  war  with  the 
Romans,  was  that  there  was  an  oracle  found  in  their  sacred 
writings  to  the  effect  that  about  that  time  one  from  their 
country  would  become  ruler  of  the  habitable  earth.  He 
claims  that  the  oracle  was  fulfilled  in  Vespasian,  who  was 
called  from  the  command  of  the  Roman  army  in  Judea  to  be 
emperor  of  Rome;  but  this  is  an  evidence  at  once  of  his  un- 
belief in  Jesus,  and  of  his  willingness  to  flatter  the  emperor 
who  had  bestowed  on  him  many  signal  favors.'  Suetonius  says : 
"An  ancient  and  settled  opinion  had  prevailed  throughout  the 
whole  East,  that  fate  had  decreed  that  at  that  time  persons 
proceeding  from  Judea  should  become  masters  of  the  world. 
This  was  foretold,  as  the  event  afterward  proved,  of  the 
Roman  emperor ;  but  the  Jews  applied  it  to  themselves,  and 
this  was  the  cause  of  their  rebellion."-  Tacitus  says  :  "The 
greater  number  believed  that  it  was  written  in  the  ancient 
books  of  the  priests,  that  at  that  very  time  the  East  should 
'"Hut  now  what  <Hil  most  ele-  "When  we  were  come  to  Rome,  I 
vate  them  in  undertaking  this  war  had  great  oare  taken  of  me  by 
was  an  ambiguous  oracle  that  was  Vespasian  ;  for  he  gave  me  an 
also  found  in  their  sacred  writings,  apartment  in  his  own  house  which 
how,  about  that  time,  one  from  he  lived  in  before  he  cauu'  to  the 
their  country  should  become  gov-  empire.  He  also  honored  ine  w  ith 
ernor  of  the  hal)ita()le  earth.  The  the  privil.  ^e  of  a  lloman  citizen, 
.lews  took  this  pnMliction  to  belong  an<l  gave  me  an  annual  pension, 
to  themselves  in  particular,  and  and  continued  to  respect  me  to  the 
many  of  the  wise  men  were  there-  end  of  his  life.  ...  I  also  re- 
by  deceived  in  their  determina-  ceived  from  Vespasian  no  small 
tion.  Now  this  oracle  certainly  quantity  of  lan<l,  as  a  free  gift,  in 
denoted  the  government  of  Ves-  Judea."  i  Lijf  of  Josephus,  Soc.  IG). 
pasian,  who  was  appointed  emper-  *  Lif>  nf  IV. «/»';.«(<(»,  Sec.  4. 
or    in    .Tu<lea '"        W^nn,    vi.    o,    4i. 


24  •  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

become  very  powerful,  and  that  persons  proceeding  from 
Judea  should  become  masters  of  the  world."  '  His  language 
is  so  nearly  identical  with  that  of  Suetonius  as  to  suggest  that 
they  obtained  their  information  from  a  common  source, 
(probably  from  Josephus),  but  this  does  not  render  their  state- 
ments any  less  credible.  Certain  it  is  that  if  we  had  no  infor- 
mation on  this  subject  at  all  in  the  New  Testament,  we  would 
believe  on  the  testimony  of  these  three  writers  that  such  an 
expectation  as  they  mention  in  common  did  prevail  at  that 
time,  and  this  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  prove  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  New  Testament  writers  in  assuming  the  same 
thing. 
\?^^n:  (2).  There  is  similar  evidence  in  the  allusions  to  the  state 

ihem^aud  ^'^  feeling  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans.  John  rcp- 
ri'tau*""  resents  a  Samaritan  woman  as  being  surprised  that  Jesus  asked 
her  for  a  drink  of  water,  and  explains  her  surprise  by  say- 
ing that  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  have  no  dealings  (iv.  9)  ; 
and  he  represents  the  Jews  when  reproaching  Jesus  as  saying, 
"  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  de- 
mon ?"  (viii.  48).  Luke  says  that  on  one  occasion  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  were  going  towards  Jerusalem,  and  wishing  to  lodge 
in  a  Samaritan  village  by  the  way,  "  they  did  not  receive  him 
because  his  face  we  was  as  though  he  were  going  to  Jerusalem  " 
(ix.  51-56).  These  statements  are  made  in  an  incidental  way 
while  giving  accounts  of  other  matters,  and  they  are  given 
without  a  word  of  explanation  as  to  the  cause  or  causes  of  this 
animosity.  On  examining  the  formal  history  of  the  Jews  by 
their  countryman  Josephus,  we  find  the  same  state  of  feeling. 
He  gives  a  full  account  of  an  incident  very  similar  to  that 
mentioned  by  Luke,  which  resulted  in  a  great  deal  of  blood- 
shed. He  says  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Galileans,  when 
they  went  to  Jerusalem  to  the  festivals,  to  pass  through  the 
country  of  the  Samaritans  ;  and  that  on  one  occasion  certain 
persons  belonging  to  the  border  town  of  Ginea  came  out 
against  a  company  of  the  Galileans  thus  journeying,  and 
killed  a  great  many  of  them.  This  led  to  retaliation  on  the 
])art  of  the  Jews,  and  to  contentions  before  the  Roman  com- 

'  Histori/,  V.  K). 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  2o 

luauders,  which  finally  culminated  in  a  settlement  of  the  con- 
test by  an  appeal  to  the  emperor/ 

(3).  In  all  of  the  five  historical  books  of  the  New  Testa-  \lll'l\[.„, 
ment  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  plays  a  conspicuous  part,  and '"*'^''®"' 
the  Sadducees  are  occasionally  mentioned  ;  but  in  not  one  of 
them  is  there  a  formal  account  of  either  of  these  sects,  stating 
whence  they  originated,  or  what  in  full  were  their  peculiarities. 
The  writers  allude  to  them  constantly  as  if  they  were  well 
known  to  their  readers,  and  such  doctrines  or  practices  as 
characterized  them  are  referred  to  in  the  same  incidental  way. 
Josei)hus,  on  the  other  hand,  mentions  them  quite  frequently 
with  formal  statements  of  their  doctrines  and  practices,  and  as 
he  was  himself  a  Pharisee,  his  statement  must  be  regarded  as 
authentic,  except  where  they  can  be  suspected  of  party  bias. 
A  comparison  of  his  formal  statements  with  the  informal 
allusions  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  is  a  very  good  test  of 
the  accuracy  of  the  latter.  Matthew  represents  Jesus  as 
alluding  to  the  reputation  of  the  Pharisees  for  righteousness 
of  a  high  order,  by  saying  to  his  disciples  that  unless  their 
righteousness  shall  excel  that  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
they  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (v.  20).  On 
this  point  Josephus  says  that  the  Pharisees  "  are  a  certain  sect 
of  the  Jews  who  appear  more  religious  than  others,  and  seem 
to  interpret  the  laws  more  accurately  "  (  U  a/-.s,  i.  5,  2).  Mat- 
thew in  another  place  represents  them  as  reproaching  Jesus 
ftr  transgressing  the  tradition  r)f  the  elders;  and  Mark,  in 
speaking  of  the  same  incident,  says  that  they  held  tlu>  tradi- 
tion of  the  elders;  but  neither  tells  what  the  tradition  (»f  the 
elders  is ;  and  to  this  day  commentators  and  critics  are 
dependent  on  the  statements  of  Josephus  for  a  definition.  He 
confirms  what  these  writers  say,  and  at  the  same  time  explains 
it  by  saying,  "  The  Pharisees  have  delivered  to  the  people  a 
great  many  observances  by  succession  from  their  fathers, 
which  are  not  written  in  the  laws  of  Moses;  and  for  that  rea- 
son it  is  that  the  Sadducees  reject  them  and  say  that  we  are  to 
esteem  the  observances  to  be  obligatory  which  are  in  (he  writ- 
ten word,  but  not  to  observe  what  aTc  derived  from  the  tnuli- 


26  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

tioii  of  our  forefathers.  And  eouceruing  these  things  it  is 
that  great  disputes  and  differences  have  arisen  among  them, 
while  the  Sadducees  are  able  to  persuade  none  but  the  rich, 
aud  have  not  the  populace  obsequious  to  them,  but  the 
Pharisees  have  the  multitude  on  their  side"  (Ant.,  xiii.  10.  6). 
The  popular  influence  of  the  Pharisees  here  alluded  to  by 
Josephus  is  repeatedly  affirmed  by  him,  and  it  constitutes 
another  point  of  coincidence.  He  says  that  the  Pharisees 
have  so  great  power  over  the  multitude,  that  when  they  say 
anything  against  the  king,  or  against  the  high  priest,  they  are 
presently  believed"  (xiii.  10.  5).  He  says  again,  that  "on 
account  of  their  doctrines  they  are  able  to  greatly  j)ersuade 
the  body  of  the  people  ;  and  that  whatsoever  the  latter  do 
about  divine  worship,  prayers,  and  sacrifices,  they  perform 
according  to  their  directions"  (xviii.  1.  3).  This  is  precisely 
the  kind  of  influence  that  is  ascribed  to  them  in  the  !New' 
Testament.  Jesus  devoted  the  whole  speech  recorded  in  the 
twenty-third  chapter  of  Matthew  to  an  effort  to  break  down 
their  influence  ;  while  John  says  they  had  agreed  to  exclude 
from  the  synagogues  in  Jerusalem  every  one  who  should  con- 
fess that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  and  that  at  one  time  many  of 
the  rulers  believed  on  Jesus,  but  because  of  the  Pharisees  they 
did  not  confess  him  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the 
synagogue  (ix.  13,  22;  xii.  42).  As  to  the  more  prominent 
differences  between  the  parties,  concerning  angels,  spirits  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  joint  testimony  of  the  two 
.sets  of  writers  is  equally  explicit.' 
Geo-  IV.  One  of  the  greatest  difficulties  in  the  way  of  histori- 

graphical        ,  ....  .     ,  n  '      \  •      ^  i 

aHusions.  cal    composition,    IS    the    maintenance    ot    geographical    and 

often  in-  '    .  .     .  .,  .       ,  , 

accuruti;.  to|)ographical  accuracy,      liiis  is  strikingly  true  when  a  writer 

attempts  to  describe  events  which  transpired  in  a  country  with 

which  he  is  not  thoroughly  familiar.      When  the  Encyclopedia 

Brittanica,    for    example,    was    first    published,    although    its 

Some  ex-  articles  were  written  by  experts  in  the  several  departments,  it 

amp  68.    ^.^j^^jjjj^g,.|   j.f,   ,iiany  blunders  of  this  kind  in   regard  to  places 

in  America,  that  the  pul)lishers  of  its  rival,  the  New  American 

Cyglopedia,  issued  a  pamphlet  of  considerable  size,  containing 

'  Matt.  xxii.  '_':'>;  Acts  xxiii.  S;  cf.  .1/''.  xviii.  1.  :i,  4. 


NK\\     TKSTAMKNT    BOOKS.  27 

a  list  of  these  blunders.  A  more  uotahle  instance  is  found  in 
the  Germania  of  Taeitus.  So  many  and  .so  serious  are  liis 
mistakes  in  the  geography  of  Germany,  that  some  scholars 
have  doubted  whether  a  work  so  erroneous  could  have  been 
written  bv  an  author  of  his  known  reliability.'  Jo.sephus, 
though  a  native  of  Palestine,  and  familiar  from  his  early  days 
with  every  part  of  it,  especially  with  Jeru.salem  and  Galilee, 
makes  .some  prodigious  misstatements  in  regard  to  both  of 
the.se  localities.  He  says,  for  instance,  of  the  outer  wall  of  the 
temple,  that  "  the  lowest  part  of  it  was  erected  to  the  height 
of  three  hundred  cubits,  and  in  some  places  more ; "  whereas 
it  is  known  by  the  observations  of  modern  explorers  that  the 
highest  part  of  it  could  never  have  been  half  that  high.  He 
also  says,  with  greater  exaggeration,  that  such  was  the  height 
of  the  battlement  on  the  .southern  end  of  this  wall,  that  if  one 
standing  on  top  looked  down  into  the  valley  "  his  sight  could 
not  reach  to  such  an  immense  depth."  Again,  he  says  of 
Galilee,  that  "  the  cities  in  it  lie  very  thick,  and  that  its 
villages  arc  everywhere  so  full  of  people,  that  the  very  least 
of  them  contains  above  fifteen  thousand  inhabitants."^ 

But  the  most  remarkable  of  these  classes  of  mistakes  are  A  fl'^^ 
those  vet  to  be  mentioned — those  of  writers  who  have  visited""''''' 
Palestine  for  the  express  })urpuse  of  describing  its  localities 
for  the  in.structions  of  others.  It  is  notorious  that  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  ta.sk  of  every  writer  who  visits  that  country 
consists  in  correcting  the  topographical  mistakes  of  his 
predeces.sors.  And  even  the  guide  books  written  by  scholars 
with  the  most  minute  attention  to  details,  with  a  view  to 
enabling  the  tourist  to  find  his  way  to  every  spot  without  the 
aid  of  a  living  guide,  are  more  or  less  characterized  by  .similar 
errors.  The  author  u.sed  in  his  tour  of  Palestine  the  very 
best  of  these,  and  its  accuracy  was  a  con.stant  source  of  gratifi- 
cation;  but  in  a  few  instances  it  was  found  at  fault,  esj)ecially 
in  the  points  of  the  compass,  and  the  relative  order  of  the 
location  of  villages. 

In    the    New    Testament    no    .-ueh    mistakes     are    found. 

'  Encyclopedia   Brittanita,    An.        •' U-n^,  v.  '>.   i;     I/-',  x\.    11.   •"> ; 
TacUu«.  Wars,  iii.  :*>.  L'. 


28  CREDIBrLITV    OF    THE 

N.'i^^i'r  ^^'hcthcr  its  writers  speaiv  of  their  own  or  of  foreign  lands,  they 
.orrect.  gi^vavs  speak  with  faultless  accuracy,  so  that  their  argus-eyed 
critics  for  two  thousand  years  have  not  been  abh^  to  detect 
them  in  an  error.'  This  accuracy  extends  not  only  to  the 
relative  location  of  places,  and  to  the  points  of  the  compass, 
but  to  the  most  minute  details,  even  to  the  relative  elevations 
of  places  mentioned  in  the  narratives,  (^ne  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult things  in  the  experience  of  a  traveler  is  to  remember, 
as  he  passes  from  one  place  to  another,  whether  he  has  come 
up  or  down.  Indeed,  there  are  few  persons  who  can  say  of 
places  not  far  from  their  own  homes,  whether  it  is  up  or  down 
to  them,  unless  there  is  a  very  striking  difference  in  the 
level.  But  in  this  particular  the  New  Testament  writers,  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Old  Testament  writers,  are  never 
at  fault.  The  man  who  fell  among  robbers  was  going  "  down 
to  Jericho  "  (Luke  x.  30) ;  everybody  went  "  up  to  Jeru- 
salem"  (Matt.  XX.  17,  18;  Luke  xix.  28,  29;  Acts  xi.  2, 
XV.  2 ;  Gal.  i.  17) ;  they  went  "  dow7i  to  Gaza"  (Acts  viii.  26) ; 
"  down  to  Cjesarea  "  (ix.  30) ;  "doion  to  Lydda  "  (ix.  32) ; 
"  down  to  Antioch  "  (xi.  27) ;  and  so  with  equal  accuracy  of 
every  other  place.  How  impossible  it  would  be  for  writers 
who  were  not  very  familiar  with  the  country  to  do  this,  can  at 
once  be  realized  if  the  reader  will  imagine  himself  describing 
the  movements  of  men  from  place  to  place  in  Palestine,  and 
noting  when  they  go  up  and  when  they  go  down. 

'  The  author  of    "  Supernatural  that  there  was  no  Bethany  beyoiul 

Kehgion  "   attempts  to  break   the  the  Jordan ;  an  assumption  which 

force  of  this  evidence  by  asserting  claims  knowledge  where  the  author 

that  there  arc  several  geographical  possesses  none.     Again,  h^asserts 

errors  in  the  (Jospel  of  John;  but  incorrectly  that  John  locates -Knon 
he  makes  only  two  specifications,  *  near  to  Salem   in  Judea;  and  bi- 

both  of  whii'h  are  errors  on  his  own  cause  the  place  was  quite  unknown 

part.     He  cliarges  that  the  writer  in  the  third  century,  he  thinks  that 

of  this  Gospel,  in   speaking  of   a  there  is  here  another  blunder.    But 

Bethany    beyond     Jordan    where  the  place  has  been  recently  identi- 

John  was  baptizing,  either  referred  tied  by  Capt.  Clonder,  as  all  persons 

to  the  Betliaiiy  near  Jerusalem  and  know    who    are    acquainted    with 

mistook  its  position,  or  invented  a  Palestine     exploration     literature, 

second  Bethany,  and  thus  displayed  and   thus   another   false  charge  is 

an  ignorance  improbable  in  a  Jew.  refuted.    (See 'Vu;;.  ftW.,  ii.  417,  418). 
I'nt  this  is  MwsuminL'  without  proof 


NKW    TKSTAMKNT    BOOKS.  29 

These  faets  not  only  establish  for  the  New  Testament  writers  YS^^*^  ':' 

•'  this  evi 

a  character  for  accuracy  and  closeness  of  observation  above ^^""• 
that  of  other  men,  but  they  suggest  the  question,  How  were 
they  able  to  maintain  an  accuracy  so  unprecedented  ".'     If  the 
fact  does  not  prove  that  they  enjoyed  supernatural  guidance, 
it  points,  at  least,  in  that  direction. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ALLEGED    CONTRADICTIONS     BETWEEN    JOHN     AND    THE 

SYNOPTISTS. 

* 

tlr"ev-''  -^^^  severest  test  to  which  writers,  concerned  like  those  of 
dence.  [[^g  New  Testament  with  a  common  series  of  events,  can  be  sub- 
jected, is  a  careful  comparison  of  their  statements  one  with 
another.  Contradictions  between  them  are  certain  to  be 
found,  unless  all  are  thoroughly  informed  in  regard  to  all 
particulars  and  unfailingly  accurate  in  detailing  them.  So  dif- 
ficult is  it  to  avoid  sucli  contradictions,  that  when  they  occur 
in  reference  to  minor  details  they  are  not  considered  inconsist- 
ent with  the  degree  of  authenticity  which  belongs  to  first- 
class  writers.  When,  however,  the  contradictions  between 
two  or  more  writers  are  numerous,  and  when  they  affect  the 
more  important  events  of  Avhich  tiiey  speak,  this  is  demon- 
strative proof  that  one  or  more  of  them  is  unreliable.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  a  number  of  such  writers  are  proved  to 
have  written  independently  of  one  another,  and  are  found  to  be 
free  from  contradictions,  the  facts  which  they  state  in  common 
possess  the  highest  degree  of  credibility.  If,  in  addition  to 
this,  there  are  found  numerous  incidental  agreements  l)etween 
them,  the  evidence  of  authenticity  is  the  most  conclusive 
known  to  human  testimony, 
coml^^ou  Strong  as  this   kind   of  evidence  is    when   it   assumes  the 

form  last  mentioned,  it  is  nevertheless  more  frequently  and 
effectively  (Muployed  in  exposing  the  claims  of  inauthentic 
documents  than  in  establishing  the  claims  of  those  that  are 
authentic.  For  this  reason  it  has  always  been  the  choice 
weapon  of  the  enemies  of  the  New  Testament.  So  many  and 
so  serious  are  the  charges  of  eontradietion    which    have   hecMi 


iis( 


NEAV    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  31 

preferred  against  the  various  writers  of  this,  book,  that  we 
think  it  proper  to  consider  tlicse  before  we  take  up  the 
evidence  from  this  source  which  is  in  their  favor.  As  regards 
the  evidence  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapters  of  this  Part, 
there  is  no  serious  controversy  between  believers  and  un- 
believers; but  that  which  we  are  about  to  consider  has  been, 
and  still  is,  very  warmly  contested,  and  it  demands  very 
careful  attenti(»n.  It  is  not  practicable  in  this  volume,  nor  is  it 
needful  for  tln'  j)urpose  of  settling  the  question,  that  we  con- 
sider all  the  specifications  which  are  made  under  this  head. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  consider  those  on  which  unbelief 
chiefly  relies;  for  by  these  the  controversy  is  to  be  settled. 
The  alleged  contradictions  may  be  classified  as  follows: 

I.  Those  between  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the  other  three, 
called  the  Synoptic  Gospels; 

II.  Those  between  the  several  Synoptic  Gospels; 

III.  Those  between  Acts  of  Apostles  and  other  Books. 

Before  we  take  up  these  allegations  for  special  considera-^.  c?ntra- 

i  r>  I  diction 

tion,  it  is  necessary  that  we  state  very  clearly  what  is  meant '^*^'i"^^ 
by  a  contradicton.  Two  statements  are  contradictory  not 
when  they  differ,  but  when  they  can  not  both  be  true.  If,  on 
any  rational  hypothesis,  we  may  suppose  them  both  to  be  true, 
we  can  not  rightfully  pronounce  them  contradictory.  We  are 
not  bound  to  show  the  truth  of  the  given  hypothesis;  but  only 
that  it  may  be  true.  If  it  is  all  possible,  then  it  is  possible 
that  no  contradiction  exists;  if  it  is  probable,  then  it  is  prob- 
able that  no  contradiction  exists;  and  the  degree  of  the  latter 
probal)ility  is  measured  by  that  of  the  former.  This  being 
true,  it  follows  that  an  omission  by  one  writer  of  a  fact  which 
in  a  full  account  would  have  been  mentioned, and  is  mentioned 
by  another,  is  not  a  contradiction.  It  shows  that  the  writer 
who  makes  the  omission  does  not  give  a  full  account ;  but 
throws  no  suspicion  on  the  aut^her  by  whom  the  fact  is  men- 
tioned.'    It  follows,  also,  that  when  there  is  an  appearance  of 

'"Till'    omis-<ioii    l)y   ji    lontciu-  case    l»y  no  iiie;ins   unusual.     Tin- 

porary  author  to  notice  a  fact  wtiich  youn^rcr   Pliny,  altliouRh   n'vinR  a 

"V,  from  wliatcvi-r  rcxson,  may  con-  circumstantial    detail   of  so   many 

.siller  III   the   icrfatcst    mniiicnt,  is  a  pliysical    lai't>   ami    ilrscribintr    tin- 


32  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

^J"^^^^"*'^ contradiction  between  two  writers,  common  justice  requires 
them.  ^i^j^^  before  we  pronounce  one  or  both  of  them  false  we 
should  exhaust  our  ingenuity  in  searching  for  some  probable 
supposition  on  the  ground  of  which  they  may  both  be  true. 
The  better  the  general  reput;ition  of  the  writers,  the  more  im- 
perative is  this  obligation,  lest  we  condemn  as  false  tliose  who 
are  entitled  to  respectful  consideration.  With  these  rules  of 
common  justice  to  guide  ns,  we  now  take  up  for  separate 
examination  the  three  classes  of  alleged  contradictions  which 
we  have  named. 
A  former        I.  In  Part  II.  we  have  already  considered  two  of  the  alleged 

rcfGrciicc 

to  this  inconsistencies  between  John  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  (pages 
148-151),  and  we  stated  that  all  the  others  were  based  on  false 
assumptions.  We  aro  now  to  see  whether  this  statement  can 
be  made  good.  In  testing  it  we  shall  omit  for  the  present  all 
that  pertains  to  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus,  re- 
serving these  for  separate  consideration. 

Theomis-       There  are  two  verv  prominent  events  mentioned  in  John's 

sion  of  -    ' 

two  not-  Gospel  which  are  discredited  because  thev  are  not  mentioned 

able  mir-  A 

acies  by    j^^.  j^j^y  other  writer.     These  are  the  healing  of  the  man  born 

the  byn-       -J  o 

optists.  blind,  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  They  are  discredited, 
not  merely  because  they  are  omitted  by  other  writers,  but 
because  it  is  alleged  that  they  are  so  much  more  convinc- 
ing than  the  wonders  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists,  that  the 
latter  would  certainly  have  used  them  if  they  had  heard  of 
them  and  believed  them.'  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  to 
remark  that  the  other  writers  adopted  plans  for  their  narra- 
tives which  involved  the  omission  from  them  of  the  visits  to 
Jerusalem  with  which  those  two  miracles  are  connected,  and 
whicli  limited  their  accounts  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  almost 
exclusively  to  those  wrought  in  Galilee.  The  mention  of 
these  two  would  have  required  a  reconstruction  of  their  plans. 
Furthermore,  one  of  the  reasons  for  which  they  adopted  such 

great    eruption    of    Vesuvius,   the  laneum  and  Pompeii."   (Lee, /rwipi- 

earfhquake,   and    the    showers  of  ration,  255). 

ashes  that  issued  from  the  volca-  '  Sup.  Rel,  ii.  461-464  ;    Strauss, 

noe,  makes  no  alhision   whatever  New  Life,  u.  22'.\\  Francis  Newman, 

to  the  sudden  overwhehiiing  of  two  Phmrn  of  Faith,  117. 

larjfc  and  populous  cities.  Hercu- 


NEU'    TESTAMENT    ROOKS.  ad 

plans  may  have  been  that  these  two  miracles  were  so  well 
known  by  those  whom  they  looked  to  as  their  first  readers 
that  they  thoiii^ht  it  well  to  omit  these  and  record  others  less 
familiar.  Certainly  the  miracles  wrought  in  Jerusalem  and 
made  subjects  of  public  discussion  there,  were  more  familiar 
10  the  first  converts  of  the  Apostles  than  tiiose  wrought  in  the 
remote  districts  of  Galilee.  As  the  omission,  then,  can  be 
accounted  for  by  the  great  notoriety  of  these  two  miracles,  as 
well  as  by  the  plans  of  the  writers,  it  certainly  affords  no 
ground  for  suspicion  that  they  were  not  known  at  ail. 

Another  event  mentioned  by  John,  not  so  suspicious,  and-^^,^/!*  «^; 
not  miraculous,  is  treated  in  the  same  way.  It  is  the  arraign-  Jj^.f.'r"^'* 
ment  of  Jesus  before  Annas,  who  is  said  to  have  sent  him  to  •^"""=^- 
Caiaplias  (John  xviii.  13,  24),  and,  as  alleged,  the  location  of 
Peter's  denial  iu  the  court  of  Annas.^  As  to  the  former,  its 
mere  omission  from  the  other  narratives  is  no  evidence  against 
its  reality;  it  is  only  an  additional  piece  of  information  fur- 
nished by  John  which  is  perfectly  harmonious  with  that  fur- 
nished by  the  other  writers.  As  to  the  latter,  it  is  not  true 
that  John  represents  the  denial  as  taking  place  before  Annas. 
A  careful  reading  of  the  passage  will  show  that  John  de- 
scribes no  proceedings  at  all  in  the  "  court  of  Annas."  He 
says,  at  verse  13,  that  the  officers  led  Jesus  to  Annas  first,  and 
that  the  latter  was  father-in-law  to  "Caiaphas,  who  was  high 
priest  that  year."  He  distinctly  calls  Caiaphas  the  high 
priest,  and  does  not  give  that  title  to  Annas.  He  next  repre- 
sents himself  as  being  known  to  the  high  priest,  meaning 
Caiaphas,  and  as  being  cmboldcnd  by  that  circumstance  both 
to  enter  the  court  and  to  ask  the  portress  to  admit  I'eter. 
He  was  then  in  the  court  of  Caiaphas,  and  it  appeal's  to  have 
been  in  that  very  court  that  the  officers  had  led  Josus  to 
Annas.  Annas,  being  father-in-law  to  Caiaphas,  may  very 
naturally  have  been  found  in  the  court  of  the  latter  that 
mornini;,  especially  ns  Caiaphas  had  some  business  on  hand  in 
which  his  father-in-law  was  as  deeply  interested  as  himself. 
Furthermore,  the  very  next  step  in  the  pn/ceedings  men- 
tioned by  John,  the  interrogation  of  Jesus  about  his  disciples 
'Straus-,  y.ir  Lifr.  ii.  :un.  347. 


34  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

and  his  teaching,  was  conducted  by  "the  high  priest,"  the 
title  which  John  applies  exclusively  to  Caiaphas.  To  show 
that  by  "the  high  priest"  all  through  this  account  he  meant 
Caiaphas,  he  says  "  Annas  therefore  sent  him  bound  unto 
Caiaphas  the  high  pi'iest.'^  There  is,  then,  not  the  slightest 
discrepancy  between  the  writers ;  and  (he  only  difFeronce 
between  them  is  that  John  introduces  the  comparatively  un- 
important circumstance  that  when  Jesus  was  led  into  the  pal-* 
ace  of  Caiaphas  he  was  presented  before  Annas  first.  This 
was  done  by  the  officers  for  the  very  natural  purj)ose  of  show- 
ing respect  to  the  one  who  was  their  rightful  high  priest,  but 
who  had  been  unlawfully  deprived  of  his  office  by  military 
power. 

om'?s*sioiis        While  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  thus  discredit  these  three 

by  John,  incidents  in  John's  narrative  on  account  of  their  absence  from 
the  other  Gospels,  on  the  other  hand  some  facts  recorded  in 
the  latter  have  been  discredited  because  not  mentioned  by 
John.  The  most  conspicuous  of  these,  which  must  stand  as 
representatives  of  all,  are  the  Temptation  of  Jesus  (Strauss,  ii. 
Ill,  112) ;  his  Transfiguration  (Sup.  Rel.,  ii.  461) ;  his  Agony 
in  the  Garden  (Strauss,  ii.  333)  ;  the  darkness  attending  the 
Crucifixion  (Sup.  Rel.,  iii.  422-424)  ;  the  other  miracles  con- 
nected with  the  Crucifixion  mentioned  by  Matthew  alone  {ib., 
425);  and  the  expulsion  of  demons  by  Jesus  {ih.,  ii.  461; 
Strauss,  ii.  191).  In  order  to  see  how  groundless  is  this 
objection,  we  have  only  to  consider  the  ])eculiar  ])lan  of 
John's  Gospel. 

The  sin-  First    wc    notice    its  peculiarity   as   respects   chronology. 

cbronoi-    ^Vhile  John's  is  the  onlv  Gos|)el  that  is  chronological  tliroueh- 

ogy  of  •  1  &  to 

"Gospel  "''*'  *'^^  incidents  which  it  records  are  confined  to  a  very  small 
number  of  days,  with  wide  gaps  between  them.  Its  first  group 
of  events,  extending  to  the  eleventh  ver.se  of  the  second  chap- 
ter, occurred  in  the  space  of  four  days.  The  n(!Xt  group,  ex- 
tending to  iii.  21,  oc(:u])ie(l  a  few  days  in  Capernaum  without 
incident,  and  a  Pas.sover  week  in  Jeru.salem.  During  the  next 
twelve  months,  if  the  feast  mentioned  in  v.  1  is  a  passover, 
there  is  nothing  recorded  except  his  bajjlizing  in  Judea 
(iii.  22),  his  jniirncy  to  (JMlilee   (iv.  3-43),  with  two  days   in 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  35 

Sychar,  and  one  day,  a  sabbath,  in  Jerusalem  (v.  10).  We 
next  find  a  perfect  blank  of  twelve  months  (v.  1 — vi.  4),  and 
this  is  iblK)we<l  by  the  incidents  of  two  consecutive  days  in 
Galilee  (vi.  5,  22).  Next  there  is  another  total  blank  of  six 
months,  followed  by  three  days  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
ending  on  a  sabbath  (vi.  4,  comp.  vii.  2,  14,  37;  viii.  59; 
ix.  14).  Then  there  is  still  another  blank  of  three  months 
followed  by  one  day  at  the  feast  of  dedication  (x.  22,  39).  In 
the  next  three  months,  from  the  feast  of  dedication  to  the 
passover,  nothing  is  recorded  except  the  retirement  of  Jesus 
beyond  the  Jordan  (x.  40-42) ;  the  four  days  connected  with 
the  raising  of  Lazarus  (xi.  G,  17) ;  and  the  retirement  to  Eph- 
raim  (xi.  54).  See  x.  22 — xi.  55,  xii.  1.  Glancing-  back  over 
these  figures  and  summing  them  uj),  wo  find  that  the  whole 
number  of  days  occupied  with  recorded  incidents  up  to  the 
last  week  of  the  life  of  Jesus  is  only  twenty-five.  This  result 
must  prove  a  surprise  to  every  reader  of  the  Gospel  who  has 
not  taken  pains  to  make  the  count.  Who  would  have  supposed 
that  in  giving  an  account  of  a  career  which  ran  through  more 
than  three  years,  with  the  whole  of  which  the  writer  was  famil- 
iar, he  would  limit  himself  to  the  incidents  of  less  than  thirty 
days,  and  these  so  selected  as  to  leave  gaps  between  them  vary- 
ing from  a  few  days  to  throe  months,  and  even  to  whole  years? 
Yet  this  is  what  we  find.  Now,  to  argue  from  u  narrative  Hfg'^^^fjj'i^ 
thus  constructed,  that  incidents  recorded  by  the  other  xvriters'^'"'''^'''"'* 
are  discredited  i)y  his  silence  in  regard  to  them,  is  to  argue 
without  the  slightest  regard  to  facts;  it  is  to  array  nothing 
against  something. 

But,  second,  the  absurdity  of  this  mode  of  reasoninu"  ap-n"don 

,  •'  *=      '     his  selec- 

pears  yet  more  glaring  when  we  observe  the  peculiar  char-  '»"»'* 
acter  of  John's  selections  and  omi.ssions.  He  .selects  for  inser- 
tion what  the  Synopti-sts  have  omitted,  and  makes  his  gaps 
where  they  have  spoken,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  demonstrate 
a  fixed  intention  to  do  so.  All  three  of  the  Synopti.sts  ad- 
vance from  their  respective  starting  points  to  the  temptation 
of  Jesus;  but  he,  without  mentioning  that  event,  or  anything 
that  preceded  it,  begins  his  narrative  immediately  after  it. 
Next   after  the  temptation  they  all    unite  in    following  Jesus 


36  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

into  Galilee;  but  he  fills  a  gap  left  by  them,  with  the 
reappearance  of  Jesus  at  the  Jordan  ;  his  visit  with  five 
disciples  gained  there  to  Cana  and  Capernaum  ;  his  attendance 
at  the  next  passover;  and  his  baptizing  in  Judea  while  John 
Avas  at  Enon  (i.  19 — iv.  3).  Moreover,  instead  of  merely 
mentioning  the  fact  that  Jesus  went  into  Galilee,  as  the 
Synoptists  do,  he  describes  the  journey  in  his  fourth  chapter. 
On  reaching  Galilee,  they  remain  there,  each  filling  the  larger 
part  of  his  whole  narrative  with  incidents  which  transpired 
there,  while  John  gives  just  one  miracle  wrought  there  which 
is  omitted  by  them  (iv.  46-54),  and  then  returns  immediately 
to  Jerusalem,  to  describe  a  visit  to  that  city  which  they  omit 
(v.  1-47).  Leaving  then  a  whole  year  blank,  a  year  rich  with 
incidents  in  the  other  narratives,  he  returns  to  Galilee,  and 
mentions  the  first  miracle  w'hich  he  has  in  common  with  them, 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  ;but  he  mentions  it  only  for  the 
purpose  of  introducing  a  long  conversation  which  grew  out  of 
it  next  day,  and  which  they  all  three  omit  (vi.  1-4;  22-71). 
The  remainder  of  their  Galilean  record  he  omits  entirely,  but 
he  touches  the  thread  of  their  story  at  the  point  where  Jesus 
finally  departs  from  Galilee,  and  gives  a  conversation  omitted 
by  them  in  which  Jesus  discusses  with  his  brothers  the  propri- 
ety of  his  going  up  to  the  feast  of  tabernacles  just  at  hand 
(vii.  1-10,  corap.  Matt.  xix.  1  ;  Mark  x.  1  ;  Luke  ix.  51). 
Skipping  now  all  the  incidents  recorded  l)y  them  between  the 
])assages  last  cited  and  the  public  entry  into  Jerusalem,  John 
records  incidents  which  they  omit  in  that  interval,  the  visit  to 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  to  that  of  dedication,  the  journey  i)e- 
yond  the  Jordan,  the  return  to  Bethany  to  raise  Lazarus,  and 
the  retirement  to  Ephraim,  thus  again  filling  large  gaps  left 
by  the  other  writers  while  making  many  in  his  own.  Finally, 
on  reaching  Jerusalem  and  touching  their  thread  a  second  lime 
in  the  feast  at  Bethany  and  the  })ublic  entry,  he  continues 
throughout  the  clo.sing  scenes  in  Jerusalem  to  skip  what  they 
reeoid,  and  to  fill  gaps  left  by  them,  except  that  he  mentions. 
in  common  with  them  the  paschal  sujiper,  the  betrayal,  the 
trial,  the  crucifixion  and  the  burial.      In  his  treatment,  how- 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  37 

«'ver,  of  these  common  incidents,  he  deals  almost  exclusively 
in  details  not  given  by  the  Synoptists. 

We  think  it  impossible  to  fairly  consider  this  remarkable ^^^fYro",, 
feature  of  John's  Gospel  without  concluding  either  that  its^^^/,^^; 
author  was  familiarwith  the  other  Gospels,  and  wrote  with 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  a  repetition  of  their  accounts,  or  that 
lie  was  suporuaturally  guided  to  write  as  he  did.  Should  we 
see  on  the  freshly  fallen  snow  three  tracks  along  the  highway 
made  by  pedestrians,  sometimes  close  together,  then  far  apart, 
then  crossing  one  another,  occasionally  identical  for  a  few 
steps,  and  then  parting ;  and  should  we  also  observe  the  track 
of  a  fourth  pedestrian,  usually  wide  apart  from  the  others,  and  * 
winding  about  as  if  to  avoid  them,  sometimes  making  a  long 
leap  to  cross  over  without  touching  them,  and  when  from 
necessity  it  does  touch  them,  touching  toe  to  heel  or  heel  to 
toe,  who  could  make  us  believe  that  the  fourth  man  did  not 
see  the  tracks  of  the  other  three  as  he  made  his  own  ?  p]ven 
should  it  be  proved  that  he  made  the  walk  in  a  dark  night, 
we  would  be  constrained  to  believe  that  he  carried  a  lantern 
in  his  hand.  Not  less  manifest  is  it  that  the  author  of  our 
fourth  Gospel  must  have  known  the  other  four  Gospels,  or 
that  he  was  guided  by  supernatural  intelligence.  How  idle, 
then,  and  how  preposterous  it  is  to  argue  that  incidents  found 
in  the  other  Gospels  which  he  omits  are  rendered  doubtful  by 
the  omission. 

Let   it   not   be  inferred   from  what  we  have  now  said  ofX^tthis 

Gospel  is 

John's  Gospel  that  we  regard  it  as  a  fragmentarv  document,  "ot  fmK 
or  as  a  mere  supplement  to  the  other  narratives.  While  it  deals 
with  fragments  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  it  is  not  alone  in  this,  for 
all  the  others  do  the  same;  and  while  it  furnishes  information 
in  almost  every  sentence  not  supplied  by  the  others,  and  is  to 
this  extent  supplementary,  it  fails  at  last,  according  to  its  own 
confession,  to  give  a  tithe  of  the  incidents  in  that  life  which 
are  omitted  by  them.  Sec  the  statement  with  which  it  closes 
(xxi.  25).  Instead  of  being  either  fragmentary  or  supple- 
mental as  its  chief  characteristic,  it  contains  a  unique  and  well 
sustained  portraiture  of  Christ,  distinctly  rouooived  at  \hr  out- 
set, and  eonsistriii  ly  fiih'fl  nut  to  the  close;   and  the  marvel  is 


38  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

that  it  could  be  drawn  while  so  carefully  avoiding  the  colors 

employed   by  the   other  painters,  and   taking   its    lights   and 

shades  from  so  small  a  number  of  the  days  in  the  life  which  it 

portrays. 

Anotiier  \  third  class  of  alleged  disci-epancies  between  John  and 

rnicn-i".-    ^^^  Synoptists  consists  in  the  omission  of  details  by  one  or  the 

:incie^.      other  while  tiie  principal  event  is  mentioned  in  common.     A 

few  examples  must  stand  for  all. 

1  In  the  1.  It  is  alleged  that  the  first  three  Evangelists  represent 

dptiiils  of  _  °  t^  I 

the  pub-  the    multitude    that    welcomed    Jesus    into    Jerusalem    with 

lie  entry. 

hosannas  as  having  come  with  him,  while  John  represents 
them  as  being  from  the  city  itself,  and  as  being  moved  to  do 
so  by  the  raising  of  Lazarus.  The  truth  of  this  matter  is 
that  the  three  Synoptists  omit  to  say  whence  the  multitude 
came  (Matt.  xxi.  1-11  ;  Mark  xi.  1-10;  Luke  xix.  29-40). 
John  alone  gives  us  this  information,  and  while  he  intimates, 
without  saying  it,  that  they  went  out  from  the  city,  he 
explicitly  says  that  they  were  "  a  great  multitude  that  had 
come  to  the  feast"  (Jno.  xii.  12-18).  Some  of  them  had 
doubtless  come  with  Jesus  ;  for  there  was  a  multitude  with,  him 
when  he  left  Jericho  (Matt.  xx.  29;  Mark  x.  46;  Luke  xix. 
1-4) ;  and  it  is  highly  probable  that  most  of  those  followed 
iiim  to  Jerusalem;  but  the  Synoptists  do  not  affirm  this,  much 
less  do  they  affirm  that  all  the  multitude  who  welcomed  him 
thus  came  with  him.  There  is  here,  then,  no  difference  except 
that  John  says  plainly  who  composed  the  multitude,  and  whnt 
chiefly  moved  them  to  act  as  they  did,  while  the  other 
Evangelists  omit  these  details. 

2  In  the  2.   It  is  allcfjed  that  in  the  account  of  the  arrest   of  Jesus 

details  of  .7  •  r     i  •      • 

the  arrest  the  Synoptists,  by  representing  Judas  as  pointnig  out  Jesus  to 
the  guard  by  a  kiss,  are  contradicted  by  John,  who  represents 
Jesus  as  being  well  known  to  the  guards,  and  as  coming  for- 
ward to  address  them  while  Judas  was  still  standing  with  them. 
Here  the  appearance  of  inconsistency  grows  entirely  out  of 
omissions,  as  is  clearly  seen  by  the  fact  that  if  the  details  an- 
put  together  as  parts  of  one  story  they  are  harmonious.  Siip- 
|)osing  all  to  be  true,  Judas  did  draw  nenr  to  Jesus  to  kiss  him, 
when  Jesus  .said  to  him,  "  Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  ot  ninii 


NKU      TKSl'A.MKNl     HOOKS.  .'39 

with  a  kiss?"  (Luke  xxii.  47,48).  Ho  did  kiss  him,  and 
Jesus  said  to  liim,  '*  Friend,  do  that  for  which  thou  art  come.*' 
Jesus  then  stepped  forward  toward  the  officers,  and  demanded, 
"Whom  seek  ye?"  They  answered,  "Jesus  of  Nazareth." 
Judas  had  bv  this  time  stopped  back  aud  was  standing  with 
them.  Jesus  says,  "  I  am  he;  "aud  when  ho  said  tiiis  they 
"  went  backward  and  fell  to  tlie  ground.''  Ho  again  demands 
.)f  them  whom  they  are  seeking;  receives  the  .'^ame  response; 
tells  them;  "If  ye  seek  mo,  lot  these  go  their  way."  Peter 
smites  one  of  them  and  is  rebuked  for  it ;  the  wounded  ear  is 
healed ;  and  then  the  officers,  having  recovered  their  courage, 
rusli  forward  and  .seize  him.  (Jno.  xviii.  4-12;  Luke  xxii. 
50,  ol).  These  arc  the  statements  of  the  several  writers,  and 
the  fact  that  they  weave  together  and  form  a  consistent  story 
shows  that  there  is  no  inoonsistency  between  them.  Only 
when  isolaled  details  of  a  (rausaction  derived  from  different 
sources  are  all  true,  are  they  likely,  when  thus  brought 
together,  to  prove  consistent  with  one  anotlior. 

Before  dismissing  this  incident,  it  may  be  worth  the  space 
io  observe  that  while  Luke  and  John  make  the  sword-stroke 
of  Peter  come  before  the  arre.'^t  of  Jesus,  iSIatthew  and  Mark 
mention  it  next  after  the  arrest,  and  this  has  been  treated  a.s 
another  contradiction.  By  turning  to  the  passage  in  Matthew 
and  Mark  the  reader  can  readily  see  that  neither  of  them 
makes  a  note  of  sequence  to  indicate  that  he  is  following  the 
order  of  time;  so  that  this  difference,  like  the  otliers  of  the 
class,  grows  out  of  an  omission  to  state  precisely  when  th«» 
stroke  was  made. 

3.  It  is  alleged   that  Jolin   is  coutradiclod   by  Mark  and';  ''\<iic 

*=>  •'  ilctiuls  of 

Luke  in  respect  to  the  removal  of  the  bodv  of  Jesus  from  thoj.''^''"*''' 
•  loss.     John  .states  that  the  Jews  requested  Pilate  to  have  thej'/j^i^,^^,  ^^j 
legs  of  the  bodies  broken,  and  the  bodies  taken  away;  while •'*^'''"'*- 
Mark  says   that  Joseph  asked   Pilate  for  the   body  of  Jesus; 
that  Pilate  wondered  if  he  were  already  dead;  inquired  of  the 
centurion  if  it  were  so;  and  then  granted  the  body  to  Josoj)h. 
It  is  argued  tiiat  this  liesitation  on  Pilate's  i)art  is  impossible 
if  ho    l)a<l    already  ordered    the   bones   to   be   broken  and  the 
ln)di«>s   to   be    removed   (Strauss^  ii.  .^!)^  ;   Smj).   IJel.,   iii.    \'M). 


40  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

The  impossibility  is  not  apparent.  The  affirmation  of  it  is 
based  on  the  assumption  that  when  Pilate  gave  the  order  to 
break  the  legs  of  the  bodies  and  remove  them,  he  knew  that 
Jesus  was  dead ;  but  the  text  does  not  so  affirm,  neither  is 
such  knowledge  implied  in  the  order.  The  breaking  of  the 
legs  was  evidently  intended  to  extinguish  what  life  might  yet 
remain  in  the  bodies,  and  the  order  for  it  rather  implies  that 
none  of  them  was  supposed  to  be  yet  dead.  When,  therefore, 
Joseph  came  in,  and  asked  for  the  dead  body  of  Jesus,  there 
is  no  ground  of  surprise  that  Pilate  inquired  whether  lie  was 
dead,  before  granting  the  request.  His  hesitation  evidently 
grew  out  of  the  fact  that  it  was  a  friend  of  Jesus  who  pre- 
ferred the  request,  and  it  was  important  to  keep  that  body  out 
of  such  hands  until  its  life  was  certainly  extinct.  It  is  only 
the  circumstance  that  Mark  omits  the  request  of  the  Jews  for 
the  removal  of  the  bodies  which  furnishes  appai'ent  room  fir 
this  fallacious  argument.  The  proximity  of  the  place  of 
crucifixion  to  the  palace  of  Pilate  made  it  quite  possible  for 
Josi'ph's  interposition  to  take  place  between  the  death  of  Jesus 
and  the  time  at  which  the  soldiers  would  have  taken  the  body 
from  the  cross,  especially  if  the  centurion  had  chosen  to  leave 
that  task  to  him  after  learning  that  hv  had  applied  for  the 
privilege. 
4.  In  4.   Perhaps   the    most   remarkable    of  the  class   of  alleged 

referonec  *  ,  ,  .  .        ,  ^       .  , 

»oe"V      discrepancies  now  under  consideration    is  that  respecting  the 
the  body  several  accounts  of  the  embalming  of  the  body  of  Jesus.     It 

of  Jesus.  . 

is  stated  by  the  author  of  "Supernatural  Religion"  in  the 
following  words:  "According  to  the  first  Gospel,  there  is  no 
embalmment  at  all ;  according  to  the  second  and  third  (tOs- 
pels,  the  embalmment  is  undertaken  by  the  women,  and  not 
by  Joseph  and  Nicodemus,  l)ut  is  never  curried  out ;  according 
to  the  fourth  Gosjiel,  the  emlialinment  is  completed  on  Friday 
evening  by  Joseph  and  Xicotlemus,  and  not  by  the  women. 
According  to  the  first  Gospel,  the  burial  is  completed  on 
Friday  evening;  according  to  the  second  and  third,  it  is  only 
provisional;  and  according  to  the  fourth,  the  embalmment  is 
final,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  entombment  is  final  or 
proN-i-ional  ;  and   ai-eoidiurr  to  the   fourth,  the  embalmment  ia 


NKW    TKsrAMKXT    H<K)K.S.  41 

final,  but  it  in  doiibtful  whether  the  eutombiuent  is  final  or 
temporary ;  several  critics  consider  it  to  have  been  only  pro- 
visional. In  Mark,  the  women  buy  the  spices  when  tlic 
sabbath  was  past;  in  Luke,  before  it  has  begun;  and  in 
Matthew  and  John  they  do  not  buy  them  at  all.  In  the 
first  and  fourth  Gospels  the  women  come  after  the  Sab- 
bath to  behold  the  scpulchcr,  and  in  the  second  and  third 
they  bring  spices  to  complete  the  burial  (iii.  439)."  If  we 
accept  without  qualification  this  series  of  statements  we  should 
conclude  that  tiie  Gospels  are  involved  in  the  utmost  confn- 
sion  and  contradiction  on  this  point;  but  that  the  apparent 
contradictions  are  only  cases  of  omission  by  one  writer  of  de- 
tails mentioned  by  another,  can  be  made  to  appear  by  merely 
quoting  this  passage  again  with  the  addition  of  such  words  as 
will  point  out  the  real  state  of  the  case.  •  To  be  a  truthful 
representation,  it  should  read  as  follows:  In  the  first  Gospel, 
the  embalmment  is  not  mentioned;  in  the  second  and  third 
Gospels,  the  embalmment  undertaken  by  the  w^omen,  but  not 
carried  out  because  they  found  the  tomb  empty,  is  mentioned, 
but  that  by  Joseph  and  Nicodcmus  is  omitted  ;  according  to 
the  fourth  Gospel,  the  embalmment  is  completed  so  far  as 
Joseph  and  Nicodcmus  were  concerned,  but  that  by  the  women 
is  not  mentioned.  According  to  the  first  Gospel,  the  burial  is 
completed  on  Friday  evening;  according  to  the  second  and 
third,  it  is  also  completed,  though  the  embalmment  is  not  ; 
according  to  the  fourth,  the  embalmment  is  final  so  far  as  was 
intended  by  Joseph  and  Nicodcmus ;  there  is  no  hint  that  the 
entombment  is  temporary,  and  the  only  critics  who  think  it 
was  are  unbelievers  like  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion. 
In  Mark,  the  women  buy  not  ''the  spices,"  but  spices,  when 
the  sabbath  is  past;  in  Luke,  they  buy  some  before  it  has  be- 
gun; and  in  Matthew  and  John,  the  purcliase  of  spices  bv  the 
women  is  omitted.  In  the  first  and  fourth  Gospels,  the  women 
come  after  the  sabbath  to  behold  the  sepulcher,  not  "  merely 
to  behold  it,"  and  in  the  second  an<l  third,  they  come  bringing 
spices  to  complete,  not  "  the  burial,"  but  the  embalming. 
Thus  all  of  the  points  of  alleged  discrepancy  in  this  portion  of 


42  CKEDiniLlTY    OF    THE 

the  history  arc  only  cases  of  omissiou,  which  can  not  without 

the  y-rossest  injustice  be  charged  as  contradictions. 
Nature  of  °  .   -*     ,  ,     ,        ®  ,.,,,. 

the  In  regard  to  the  embalmment  or  the  body,  it  may  be  well  to 

embalm-  °  .  .  . 

meut.  remark,  before  leaving  the  subject,  that  it  was  not  the  process 
whicii  bore  this  name  in  Egypt.  It  was  not  intended  as  a 
means  of  preserving  the  flesh  ;  and  it  could  have  no  other 
design  than  to  provide  an  absorbent  for  the  humors  and  gases 
that  would  exude  from  the  body  in  the  process  of  decompo- 
sition. The  greater  the  quantity  of  the  drugs  employed,  the 
more  complete  the  absorption  ;  and  this  accounts  both  for  the 
hundred  pounds  weight  provided  by  Nicodemus,  and  for  the 
two  purchases  made  by  the  women,  one  on  Friday  evening, 
and  the  other  on  Sunday  morning. 

cia^s's"of'^  As    a    fourth    class   of  the  discrepancies  in   question,  we 

confra^     mention  a  few  that  do   not  depend    on  omissions,  but  have 

dictions.    jjjQj.^.  ii^Q  appearance  of  contradictions. 

ofuiecru-  1-  Mark  represents  the  crucifixion  as  taking  place  at  the 
thii'd  hour,  or  the  hour,  according  to  Jewish  count,  from  eight 
to  nine  a.  m.  (xv.  25) ;  while  Jolui  represents  Pilate's  final  sen- 
tence against  Jesus  as  being  pronounced  at  the  sixth  hour  (xix. 
14.)  If  the  two  writers  use  the  same  method  of  reckoning 
the  hours  of  the  day,  there  is  here  a  contradiction  in  point  of 
time;  for  the  sentence  that  Jesus  should  be  crucified  is  placed 
by  John  three  hours  later  than  the  crucifixion  itself  is  placed 
by  Mark.  An  attempt  has  been  made  by  some  acute  scholars 
to  show  that  the  modern  usage  among  western  nations,  of 
counting  the  hours  fnjm  midnight,  had  already  been  intro- 
duced into  the  Province  of  Asia,  where  John  wrote,  and  that 
he  follows  this  usage  not  only  here,  but  in  other  passages  of 
his  Gospel  where  hours  of  the  day  are  mentioned  (i.  39  ;  iv.  6, 
52) ;  but  we  are  constrained  to  regard  this  attempt  as  a  failure, 
notwithstanding  its  defense  by  some  of  the  most  eminent 
scholars  of  the  present  day.'  As  the  text  now  stands,  we 
think  there  is  a  contradiction.  But  the  discussion  should  not 
end  here.  Knowing,  as  all  scholars  now  do,  that  errors  of 
transcription  crc))!  into  the  (Treek  text  at  a  period  antecedent 

'  See  Alfonl  on  John,  xix.  14,  and  also  Westcott,  Com.  ou  John,  Speak' 
er's  Commentary. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  43 

to  all  of  our  extant  raanuscripts  and  version?,  and  that  nu- 
merals were  especially  liable  to  alteration  fiom  this  source,  it  is 
an  obvious  dictate  of  justice,  before  pronouncing  against  an 
author  on  such  a  point,  to  consider  the  probal)ilty  of  a  cleri- 
cal corruption.  If  John  wrote  here  "the  sixth  hour,"  he 
seems  to  have  commiited  an  error;  for  he  contradicts  not  Mark 
alone,  but  Matthew  and  Luke  as  well,  seeing  that  though  the 
latter  do  not  say  at  what  hour  Jesus  was  crucified,  they  do  say 
that  the  darkness  which  came  over  the  earth  while  he  was  on 
the  cross  commenced  at  the  sixtii  hour,  the  very  hour  at 
which,  according  to  this  reading  of  John,  Pilate  pronounced 
the  sentence  of  crucifixion.  It  is  impossible  that  John  was 
thus  mistaken  ;  and  if  some  one  of  a  later  age,  assuming  to  be 
John,  is  the  real  writer  of  this  Gospel,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable  that  he  wantonly  contradicted  all  of  the  other 
Evangelists  on  a  point  like  this.  We  think  that  these  consid- 
erations render  it  morally  certain  that  there  is  here  an  error  of 
transcription,  the  G^reek  numeral  for  "sixth"  having  acci- 
dentally supplanted  the  one;  written  by  John. 

2.  The  Synoptic  Gospels  represent  the  women  who  were^^^^  posi- 
witnesses  to    the    crucifixion    as    standing  "afar   off,"    while ^'^'^ 

o  '  women  at 

John  says  they  were  standing  "by  the  cross  of  Jesus."  ^his {|lfj^,^"*^'' 
is  held  to  be  a  contradiction,  and  so  it  would  be  if  the  several 
writers  were  speaking  of  the  same  moment  of  time;  but  if 
they  are  speaking  of  diflerent  moments  of  time,  the  contradic- 
tion disappears.  That  they  do  speak  of  dillerent  moments 
appears  in  tlie  text.  The  remark  about  the  women  in  all 
three  of  the  Svnoptics  occurs  at  the  close  of  the  descrijitiim, 
and  it  has  reference  to  the  closing  scenes.  If  the  women  had 
arrived  on  the  ground  only  a  few  minutes  before  the  death  of 
Jesus,  all  that  they  say  would  be  strictly  true.  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  spe:»ks  of  the  beginning,  or  near  the  beginning,  as 
appears  from  a  little  reflection.  \\\wu  Je^us  .sdd  to  his  mother, 
"Woman,  behold  thy  son  ;"  and  to  the  di.'^ciple,  "  Behold  thy 
mother  ;"  no  one  could  have  known  to  whom  he  spoke  unless  he 
accompanied  his  w(»rds  by  .some  sign  to  point  the  p(M-sons  out. 
The  natural  sign  would  have  been  ;i  n\uvenu'nl  of  the  hand 
toward  the  persons  addres.-,ed  ;  but  his  hau<ls  were  pinioned  to 


44  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

the  cross,  and  this  was  impossible.  The  only  sign  left  to  him 
was  the  direction  of  his  eye,  and  the  inclination  of  his  head 
as  he  addressed  the  one  and  the  other.  But  this  could  not 
have  been  after  the  darkness  set  in,  and  consequently  this  in- 
cident must  be  located  within  the  first  three  hours,  and  while 
the  group  of  friends  were  near  enough  to  the  cross  to  distin- 
guish the  direction  of  his  eye.  Now,  was  there  anything  in 
the  circumstances  to  make  them  retire  to  a  greater  distance  as 
the  dreadful  hours  passed  on?  AVe  have  but  to  place  our- 
selves in  the  midst  of  the  scene,  and  enter  as  best  we  can  into 
the  feelings  of  this  group,  in  order  to  see  that  there  was. 
The  angry  and  blasphemous  taunts  of  the  raging  mob  around 
the  cross,  growing  more  defiant  as  it  appeared  more  certain 
that  the  sufferer  would  not  come  down,  made  it  painful  and 
dangerous  for  friends  to  stand  near  by,  and  naturally  caused 
them  to  shrink  farther  away  from  the  awful  spectacle.  It 
is  a  most  true  and  natual  representation,  then,  that  they  were 
standing  "afar  off"  when  the  agony  ended.^ 
The  night        3    j^  nothing  are  unbelievers  more  confident  than  in  the 

of  the  last  o 

supper:  assertion  that  there  is  a  contradiction  between  John  and  the 
Synoptists  in  regard  to  the  night  of  the  last  supper,  Mark 
and  Luke  are  explicit  in  stating  that  the  day  previous  to  the 
siij)per  was  the  day  in  which  the  paschal  lamb  was  sacrificed 
^'^^^^a;f- (Mark  xiv.  12;  Luke  xxii.  7).  In  common  with  Matthew 
synop-  (xxvi.  17),  Mark  calls  it  "the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread," 
by  which  they  can  only  mean  consistently  the  day  in  which, 
according  to  the  law,  the  leaven  must  be  put  out  of  the  houses 
preparatory  to  eating  unleavened  bread  the  next  seven  days 
(Ex.  xii.  15,  18).     All   three  unite   also    in    representing  the 

'The    autlior   of   "  Suporiiatural  pDScil    to  liavc   taken    place.     The 

KeUgion  "  (iii.  410),  in  atteinptinp  opposite     conjecture,    that      from 

to  correct  others  on  thi.s  point,  fell  standing'  close   to    the  cross  they 

upon  the  truth  without  recognizing  removed  to  a  distance,  has  little  to 

its  force.     He  says:    "  Olshausen,  recommend  it."    The  conjecture  of 

Lucke  and  others  suggest  that  they  which   he  can   say  nothing  worse 

subsequently  came  from  a  distance  than    that  it   has  little   to  recom- 

np  to  the  cross,  but  the  statement  mend  it,  is  the  very  one  supported 

of  the  Synoptists  is   made   at  the  by  adequate  evidence,  as  we  have 

close,  and   after  this  scf.nc  is  sup-  shown  above. 


lists 


NKW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  45 

pasclial  supper  as  boiug  eaten,  and  the  Lord's  supper  as  being 
instituted,  on  the  tbUowing  night,  the  night,  according  to  the 
law  just  cited,  after  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month.  It 
is  claimed  tliat,  in  contradiction  to  this,  John  represents  the 
supper  which  Jesus  utc  as  Ix-ing  eaten  btfort'  the  passover  (xiii.the 

11  II  cliHrgc  (if 

1) ;  while  the  fad  that  the  remark  of  Jesus  to  Judu.s  at  the  sup-eomra- 
per,  "  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly,"  was  construed  by  the  disci- 
ples as  an  order  to  buy  something  for  the  feast  (xiii.  29),  and 
the  refusal  of  the  Jews  on  the  next  morning  to  go  into  Pilate's 
l)raHorium,  because  it  would  prevent  them  from  eating  the  pass- 
over  (xviii.  28),  are  held  as  proof  that  the  passover  was  yet  in 
the  future  even  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion.  It  is  said  that 
*'  we  have  here  a  eontradicliou  as  entire  as  a  contradiction  ever 
was,  and  in  which  one  side  must  be^  wrong."  '  This  allega- 
tion we  are  now  to  test. 

We  begin  l)y  observing  that  the  Syuoptists  not  only  unite,  p^rat^on 
as  we  have  just  remarked,  in  styling  the  day  previous  to  thepla^i,^e'i: 
last  supper  "the  day  of  unleavened  bread,"  but  they  also 
unite  in  styling  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  "  the  preparation." 
Matthew  does  so  by  styling  the  day  following  "the  day  after 
tlie  preparation"  (xxvii.  62).  Luke  calls  it  "the  day  of  the 
preparation  "  (xxiii.  54) ;  while  Mark,  appending  an  explana- 
t'on,  calls  it  "  the  day  of  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  before 
the  sabbath"  (xv.  42).  Undoubtedly  they  all  use  the  term  in 
the  sense  here  defined  by  MarR,  meaning  bv  it  th(>  day  of 
preparation  for  the  sal)bath  ;  and  by  the  sabbath  they  mean. 
not  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  as  some  have  supposed,  but  the 
weekly  sabbath  of  the  passover  week.  Of  this  we  may  be 
sure  from  the  lact  that  neither  the  first  day  nor  the  last  day  of 
the  feast,  though  each  was  a  day  of  holy  convocation  and  of 
rest  from  servile  labor,  is  ever  in  the  Scripture  called  a  sab- 
bath.'    If  it   be  asked  why  this  sabbath   was  preceded  by  a 

'  Strauss,  Nev)  Life,  ii.  307,  308;  leavened  Uread,  was  a  sabbath,  on 

liaur,  Ch.  Hist.,  i.  174.  whicli  the  sabbath  law  of  rest  was 

'It    is  surprising  that  so  careful  especially   bindinpr   (Exod   xii.  Ki ; 

a  scholar  as   Westcott  should   be  Lev.  xiii.  7)."     It  is  not  called  a 

mistaken,  here,  and   should    make  sabbath  in  either  of  the  passa>res 

the  lf)nowing  remark  and  citations:  cited.      The  same   author   further 

"This    day.    tlie    first    day   of    tin-  says:  "  To  those  fiMniliar  by  cxper- 


46  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

prep  iratiou  tlay,  wo  answer  that,  like  the  limitation  of  a  sab- 
bath day's  journey  to  seven  furlongs,  it  was  a  custom  of  the 
Jews  unauthorized  by  the  law.  That  such  a  custom  did  exist, 
we  have  further  evidence  from  Josephus.  He  copies  a  decree 
of  Augustus  Ciesar  intended  for  the  protection  of  the  Jews, 
in  wliich  occurs  the  provision,  "  that  they  be  not  obliged  to 
go  before  any  judge  on  the  sabbath  day,  nor  on  the  day  of 
the  preparation  to  it,  after  the  ninth  hour"  {Ant.  xvi.  6,  2). 
There  is  a  parallel  to  this  custom  in  the  preparation  day 
observed  by  some  of  the  modern  sects  for  their  observance  of 
the  Lord's  supper.  Now  John,  instead  of  contradicting  the 
Synoptists  on  this  point,  uses  the  same  ])hraseology  with  the 
same  meaning.  He  too  calls  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  ''the 
preparation,"  and  "the  ])reparation  of  the  passover  ;  "  and  he 
indicates  that  he  means  the  pr('2)aration  for  tlie  sabbath,  and 
not  for  the  feast,  by  saying:  "The  Jews,  therefore,  because  it 
was  the  preparation,  that  the  bodies  might  not  remain  on  the 
cross  upon  the  sabbath  (for  the  day  of  that  sabbath  was  a 
high  day),  asked  of  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken, 
and  that  they  might  be  taken  away  "  (xix.  14,  81),  Thus  liir, 
then,  there  is  perfect  agreement  between  John  and  the  other 
writers, 
the  refii-         ^^y^,  ,jgxt  Consider  the  three  statements  of  John   which  are 

sal  of  the 

i-n'ter'"*"  ^G^^  to  bc  Contradictory  to  the  other  writers.  First,  his 
house  ex- '^^^^^^'"''"^  that  thosc  wlio  led  Jesus  to  Pilate  entered  not  into 
plained;  t|ie  prjctorium, "  that  tliey  might  not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat 
the  passover"  (xviii.  28).  It  is  only  by  forgetting  a  pro- 
vision of  the  law  which  no  Jew  could  ever  forget  that  this 
remark  can  be  understood  of  eating  the  j^asohal  supper. 
This  provision  is  that  a  person  unclean  from  any  other  source 
than  a  (had  Ixxly  or  leprosy  could  bc  cleansed  by  sunset  the 
same  day,  i)y  washing  his  clothes  and  bathing  his  Hesh,  and 

ience  with  .lewisli  usapes,  as  all  the  the     fact,   as    do    all   otliers    who 

F-van^re lists  imist  have    been,  the  agree  with  him  about  the  day,  tiint 

whole  narrative  of  the  crucifixion,  the  "  iucidentH  of  work  "  allude<l  to 

crowded  witli    incidents    of    work,  were   all  wroufjht    bj'  the   Cleniile 

would  set  aside  Ww  notion  t!i:U  the  Boldier.s  of    IMIate,  and  not  )>y  the 

day  was  the  fifteenth."     ( fptnuhir-  .Tows. 
tinn  In  fUmprh.  ?>?>^).      Tic  ovcrloDks 


NEW    TEsrAMKNT    HOOKS,  47 

remaining  uncleau  until  tin-  evening.  (Lev.  xv.  1-24;  xvi. 
26,  28;  xvii.  15,  16).  In  reality,  entering  the  house  of  a  Gen- 
tile not  did  render  one  uncleau  according  to  the  law;  it  was 
only  tradition  which  made  it  so;  and  it  could  not  deprive  one 
of  eating  tlie  paschal  supper  on  the  following  night,  because 
the  prescribed  process  of  purification  was  completed  before 
sunset.  Unquestionably,  then,  the  eating  here  referred  to  by 
John  was  some  other  than  that  of  the  paschal  lamb,  and  it 
was  to  occur  before  sunset  that  day.'  What  eating  is  really 
meant  we  may  not  be  able  to  discover;  but  this  can  not  alter 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb.  If 
the  remark  had  reference  to  the  priests,  and  this  may  be  its 
reference,  seeing  that  John  uses  the  indefinite  "they"  and 
the  chief  priests  were  certainly  the  persons  who  dealt  with 
Pilate  (28,  35),  the  law  itself  furnishes  a  probable  explana- 
tion. It  provides  that  on  this  first  day  of  the  feast  the 
priests  should  offer  ten  burnt  offerings,  each  accompanied  by 
its  proper  meal  offering,  amounting  in  all  to  an  ephah  and  a 
half,  or  about  a  bushel  and  a  half  of  fine  flour  made  up  into 
bread,  all  of  which  was  to  be  eaten  by  the  priests.  In 
addition  to  this,  one  he  goat  was  offered  as  a  sin  offering,  all 
of  the  flesh  of  which  must  also  be  eaten  (Num.  xxviii.  16- 
23).  It  is  probable  that  it  became  customary  to  call  this 
consumption  of  holy  food,  which  was  peculiar  to  the  passover 
feast,  "  eating  the  passover."  It  would  be  easily  distin- 
guished from  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  by  observing  the  day 
of  the  feast  to  which  reference  is  made.  If  this  is  not  the 
eating  referred  to  in  the  passage  before  us,  we  are  left  to  the 

'When    Westcott    says    (Lit.   to  Wieseler,  Ebrard  replies:  "toliave 

G'o.>»/)eb,  337),  "  Nothing  but  the  de-  entered   the    house    of    a  Gentile 

termination  to  adapt  these  words  would  certainly  liave   rendere<l    a 

to  a  theory  (-ould  suggest  tlie  idea  Jew    unclean,  so  as   to  disqualify 

that 'eating  the  passover'  applies  him  for  the  slaughter  of  the  lambs 

to  anything  but  the  great  paschal  in     tlie     temple,    which    occurred 

lueal,"  we  are   tempted  to  reply,  towards  the  close  of  the  afternoon." 

that  nothing  but  ignorance  of  tlie  ((^nxpel    IFlMonj,    398).       Btit    the 

law  of   purification  could   allow  a  question  is  not  about  slaughtering 

man  to  think  that  it  applies  to  the  the  Iambs  ;  it  is  about  catins,' them  ; 

pa.schal  meal  at  all.     To  the  argu-  and  it  was  not  necessary  that  the 

mont  mailp  above,  as  advanciMl  by  same  persons  sliDuld  ilo  both. 


48  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

only  alternative,  that   it    was  some  eating  invented   by  the 
Pharisees,  and  called  eating  the  passover.     This  passage  then, 
furnishes  no  ground  at  all  for  a  charge  of  difference  between 
John  and  the  Synoptists. 
hearing  Sccond,  John's  statement  that  when  Jesus  said  to  Judas  at 

III  tne  re-  ' 

Judasr  *^'^'  supper,  ''That  thou  doest,  do  quickly."  the  disciples 
thought  that  he  meant"  Buy  what  things  w'C  have  need  of  for  the 
feast"  (xiii.  2G-29).  It  is  held  that  by  "the  feast"  is  meant 
the  paschal  supper;  and  that  therefore  when  the  supper 
described  by  John  was  eaten  the  paschal  supper  was  yet  in 
the  future.  The  correctness  of  this  inference  depends  on  the 
question  whether  the  word  feast  can  be  jiroperly  relerred  to 
anything  else  than  the  paschal  supper.  ^Vhen  we  remember 
that  the  passover  feast  lasted  seven  days,  and  that  Jesus  and 
his  twelve  disciples  w'ere  in  the  city  on  expense  for  that  length 
of  time,  it  must  appear  very  arbitrary  to  confine  the  term 
feast,  and  the  wants  of  twelve  during  tliis  feast,  to  a  single 
meal ;  yet  such  is  the  arbitrary  assumption  which  lies  at  the 
basis  of  this  objection.  But  this  is  not  all.  Judas  went  out 
at  a  late  hour  of  the  night,  but  not  as  late  as  midnight.  If 
this  had  been  any  other  night  of  the  week  than  one  preced- 
ing a  day  of  rest,  they  could  scarcely  have  thought  that  Judas 
went  out  to  buy  supplies  for  the  company,  seeing  that  he 
could  easily  wait  till  morning.  But  if  the  following  day  w'as 
a  holy  day,  as  was  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  though  not  a  sab- 
bath, it  might  be  difficult  to  make  the  purchases  after  the  day 
set    in,*  and  thus  there  would  be  a  reason   for  going  out  ar 

'  Westcott  says  {Int.  338)  :    "  On  hv   done    in   them,   saw  that   irhlrh 

tlie  fifteenth  such  purchases  would  eirnj  man  must  eat,  that  only  may 

have  been  equally  illegal  and  ini-  he  <lone  by  you  "   (Exod.  xii.   !()). 

l»ossible  ;  "  and   Ehrard  says    {Gus-  Now  this  e.vception  concerning  that 

pel  History,  S9Q) :  "  It  was  forbidden  which  every  man  may  eat  carries 

by  the   law    either  to  work,  or  to  with  it  all  such  buying  and  selling 

buy,  or  to  sell  after  that  time;"  of  food  as  could  not  well  be  avoided, 

that  is,  after  sunset,  the  14th.     But  Still,  buying  and    selling    of    food 

these  writers    forget   that  the  law  must  have  been  very  limited  under 

was  this:  "In  the  first  day  there  the    striet    interiiretations    of    the 

shall  be  to  you  a  holy  convocation,  Pharisees,  and   Judas   uiight   well 

and  in  the  seventh  day  a  holy  con-  take  the  precaution  to  buy  during 

vocation  :   no  manner  of  work  shall  the  previous  night. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  4Sj 

night.  This  consideration  atlbrds  no  mean  evidence  that 
the  supper  described  by  John  was,  as  the  Synoptists  represent 
it,  tlie  paschal  supper,  for  this  supper  preceded  the  first  day 
of  the  feast  in  which  there  must  be  a  holy  convocation  and 
no  servile  work.  Here,  then,  instead  of  a  contradiction,  we 
find  in  John's  language  concerning  the  feast  perfect  agree- 
ment with  the  Synoptists,  and,  in  addition  to  this,  inde- 
j)endent  evidence  that  he  fixes  the  supper  on  the  same  night 
with  them. 

Third,  John's  statement  whicli  is  said  to  explicitly  locate  j'^^"^^^ 
the  last  supper  on  a  night  preceding  the  first  day  of  the  Pass- g,^®],'^/" * 
over.  His  words  arc  these:  "Now  before  the  feast  of  thcpfained. 
passover,  Jesus  knowing  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he 
should  depart  out  of  this  world  to  the  Father,  having  loved 
his  own  who  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  to  the  end. 
And  during  supper,  the  devil  having  already  put  into  the 
heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  to  betray  him,"etc.  It 
is  claimed  that  the  words,  "before  the  feast  of  the  passover," 
modify  the  whole  of  the  narration  following,  and  that  thev 
consequently  fix  the  time  of  the  supper  here  mentioned  before 
the  feast  of  the  passover.  We  can  not  see  that  this  is  true. 
On  the  contrary,  the  first  sentence  is  complete  in  itself, 
although  the  connection  of  its  clauses  is  a  little  obscure.  The 
obscurity  is  at  once  removed  if  Me  arrange  the  clauses  in 
tlie  order  of  their  de])endence,  as  follows:  "Now  Jesus, 
knowing  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out  of 
this  world  to  the  Father,  having  loved  his  own  who  were  in 
the  world  before  the  passover,  he  loved  (hem  unto  the  end." 
The  clause,  "having  loved  his  own,"  etc.,  is  the  only  one  that 
admits  of  modification  by  the  words,  *'  before  the  passover." 
The  clause  about  knowing  his  hour  was  come  ])oints  to  the 
time  of  the  feast;  and  the  clause,"  he  loved  them  to  the  end," 
points  to  the  continuance  of  his  love  from  the  time  of  the 
feast  onward.  The  whole  sentence  is  prefatory  to  the  narra- 
tive of  the  fcet-wasliing  and  the  tender  discourse  which  fol- 
lows, all  of  which  was  a  remarakablc  exhibition  of  that  love 
that  continued  to  the  end.  An  advance  in  the  narration  sets 
in  wilh  infiition  of  the  supper;  but   it   was  anticijiated   in   the 


50        CRED1151L1TV    OF    THK    >E\V    TESTAMKXT    SCRIPTURES. 

expression,  "  the  feast  of  the  passover,"  which  was  itself  a 
supper.  The  words,  "and  during  supper,"  beginning  the 
sentence  next  after  the  mention  of  the  feast  of  the  passover, 
can  refer  only  to  the  paschal  supper.  It  is  as  if  one  sliould 
speak  of  the  feast  of  Christmas,  or  of  Thanksgiving,  and 
should  add.  And  during  dinner  so  and  so  occurred ;  or  as  if, 
after  mentioning  a  wedding,  he  should  add.  And  during  sup- 
per so  and  so  occurred.  No  one  could  tliink,  in  these  cases,  of 
any  other  dinner  than  the  Christmas  or  the  Thanksgiving 
dinner;  of  any  other  supper  than  the  wedding  supper.  So,  in 
the  present  instance,  no  one  w'ould  think  of  any  other  than  the 
paschal  supper,  from  the  mere  reading  of  the  passage  itself. 
The  thought  of  another  is  read  into  the  passage;  it  is  not  sug- 
gested by  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  passage  represents  the 
events  following  as  occurring  at  the  paschal  supper,  and  the 
account  is  in  perfect  harmony,  as  respects  time,  with  Synoptic 
accounts  of  the  same  supper.^ 

'  For  opposite  views  of  the  time  Sec.    92 ;     Wcstcott's    Introduction. 

of  the  Last  Supper,  andtheauthori-  3o5-o41;  Alford's   Commentary   in 

ties  on  the   subject,   ancient   and  loco. 
modern,  see  Ebrard,  Gospel  History, 


CHAPTER   V. 


ALLEGED    CONTRADICTIONS    BETWEEN  THE  SYNOPTIC 

GOSPELS. 


II.  Having  discussed  the  specifications  of  contradiction 
between  John's  Gospel  und  the  Synoptics,  we  now  tuke  up 
those   in  which   the  latter  are  said  to  contradict  one  another. 

1.  From  the  days  of  Celsus,  the  first  infidel  writer,  till  tlie-^^toihe 

•'  '  _  ^  genealo- 

present  day,  the  genealogies  of  our  Lord  given  by  Matthew  eies. 
and  Luke  have  furnished  material  for  objections  to  the  Gospel 
narratives.  It  was  acknowledged  even  then  that  they  present 
some  difficulties  of  interpretation,  but  the  ever  varying 
objections  of  unbelief  have  from  that  day  to  this  been  success- 
fully answered.'  We  shall  state  and  answer  briefly  those 
most  commonly  urged  in  modern  times;  and  though  not  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  present  chapter,  some  that  are  directed 
against  Mattlu'w  alone. 

It  is  said,  first,  that   Matthew  delibcratelv  leaves  out   the  Mat. 

■  thew's 

names  of  four  kings  between  David  and  Jechoniah,  which  is  "^'m's- 

I       1  •  1  1  sions 

true;  second,  that  inasmuch  as  the  period  between  Jechoniah 

'  "  In     finding     fault    with    our  in   a   skillful    manner  against   tlic 

Lord's  fjt'nealogy,  there  are  certain  credihiHty    of    Scripture.     Btit    he 

points  which  oeca^ion  some  (hflicnl-  asserts    that    tlie    framers    of    the 

ty  even  to  Christians,  and  whitli,  genealogies,  from  a  feeling  of  pri<U', 

owing  to  the  discrepancies  between  made  Jesus  to  he  descended  from 

the  genealogies,  are   advanced   hy  the  first  man,  and  from  the  kin^rs  of 

some  as  arguments   against  their  the  Jews.     And  iio  thinks  that  lie 

correctness,  but  which  Celsus  has  makes  a  notable  charge  when   he 

not  even  mention('(l.     For  Celsus,  adds,    that    the     carpenter's    wife 

who  is  truly  a  braggart,  and  wiio  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  fait, 

professes  to  be  ac<|uainted  with  all  had  she   been   of  such  illustrious 

matters    relating    to    Christianity,  descent."     (Oriijen  aguimi  CeUu«,  h. 

does  not  know  how  to  niise  doubts  ii.,  i-.  xxxii.). 

(51/ 


52  CKEDlBli^lTY    OF    THE 

and  Jesus  is  about  six  hundred  years,  and  in  that  period  he 
gives  only  thirteen  names,  he  must  have  left  out  several 
names  here;  and  this  is  true;  third,  that  although  he  has  left 
out  names  in  two  divisions  of  his  list,  he  says  that  all  the 
names  in  each  are  fourteen;  and  this  is  also  true.'  But  while 
this  last  statement  is  true,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  other 
two ;  for  it  is  of  Matthew's  own  list  that  the  remark  is  made, 
and  not  of  those  from  which  he  copied.  Of  his  list  it  is  true 
that  it  contains  three  divisions  of  fourteen  each,  if  we  count 
as  he  does  by  repeating  the  name  of  Jechoniah  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last.  And  what  of  his  leaving  out  names?  If  it 
were  necessary  to  give  all  the  names  in  order  to  make  good 
the  purpose  for  which  he  quoted  any,  the  omission  would  in- 
validate his  argument ;  but  his  purpose  in  this  part,  as  all 
admit,  is  merely  to  show  that  Jesus  was  descended  from  David; 
and  this  is  done,  no  matter  how  many  names  are  omitted, 
provided  those  which  he  gives  are  certainly  in  the  line  of 
descent.  That  they  are,  down  to  Jechoniah,  is  known  to  us  by 
the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles;  and  whether  they  are 
from  Jechoniah  to  Joseph,  could  have  been  known  in  Mat- 
thew's day  by  any  one  who  would  take  the  trouble  to  consult 
the  sources  which  he  used.  If  we  were  called  to  say  why 
Matthew  made  these  omissions,  we  might,  or  we  might  not 
give  a  satisfactory  reason  ;  but  whether  there  is  a  good  reason 
or  not,  the  facts  in  the  case  do  not  invalidate  in  the  slightest 
degree  the  evidence  which  he  gives  of  the  ancestry  of  Joseph 
and  of  Jesus.^ 
fathe-^of  ^^^  ^^^  chief  objection  urged  against  the  genealogy  is  the 
Joseph,  alleged  contradiction  between  Matthew  and  Luke  as  to  the 
father  of  Joseph.  It  is  demanded,  "  How  can  Joseph  have 
been  at  the  same  time  a  son  of  Jacob  and  of  Heli?"  The 
answer  is  easy  to  any  one  acquainted  with  Jewish  usage  as  to 

'Strauss,    New    Life,    ii.    11,    15;  among   the   Jews,   who   would    be 

Francis  Newman,  Phases  of  Failh,  constantly  called  on  to  prove  the 

65,  66.  descent  of  Jesus  from  David,  and 

2  A  probable  reason  is,  that  the  who,  not  always  having  the  book 

list  was  divided  into  three  divisions  at  hand,  would   need  to  have  the 

of  fourteen  names  each,  to  aid  the  names  memorized, 
memory    uf    the    early    preachers 


NEW    TESTA  MKNT    HOOKS.  53 

genealogical  terms.  Tluiv  are  tour  ways  in  which  one  man 
could  be  son  of  another  in  Jewish  usage:  when  he  was  son  in 
our  sense  of  the  word  ;  when  he  was  a  grandson;  when  he 
was  son  by  a  levirate  marriage ;  and  when  he  was  a  son-in- 
law.  Of  the  second,  there  are  many  examples  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Of  the  third,  we  have  one  unquestionable  exam- 
ple in  this  verv  genealogy  as  given  by  botli  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  we  have  a  law  providing  for  it.  The  law  is,  that 
if  a  man  take  a  wife  and  die  childless,  his  brother,  which 
means  in  this  instance  his  nearest  kinsman,  shall  take  the 
widow  and  raise  up  seed  to  his  brother  (Dent.  xxv.  5-10). 
The  example  is  that  of  Obed,  son  of  Boaz.  Tiie  latter  took ^^J^f^«n^^ 
Ruth,  the  childless  widow  of  his  kinsman  Mahlon,  son  of 
Elimelech,  "to  raise  up  the  name  of  the  dead  upon  his 
inlieritance,"  and  begat  Obed.  In  compliance  with  the  law, 
(Jhed  was  the  levirate  son  and  heir  of  the  deceased  Mahlon, 
and  inherited  the  land  of  Eliraelech,  his  grandfather  on  that 
side  (Ruth  i.  1-5;  ii.  1;  iii.  12,  13;  iv.  1-G,  0-11,  13,  17). 
"While  his  ancestry  by  the  blood  line  goes  back  throuijh  Boaz 
to  Judah,  as  it  is  traced  by  Matthew  and  by  Luke  (Matt.  i. 
3-5  ;  Luke  iii.  32,  33),  if  any  one  had  seen  fit  to  trace  the  line 
bv  which  he  inherited  tlie  lands  of  Elimelech,  he  would  have 
written,  Obed  son  of  Mahlon,  son  of  Elimelech,  and  so  on 
back  to  Judah.''  In  other  words,  Obed  had  two  fathers,  just  a-; 
Joseph  had  ;  and  two  lines  of  genealogy  meeting  in  Judah, 
just  as  Joseph   liad  two  lines  meeting  in   David.     This  shows  Xocon- 

I  •  I  •    1     T  I'll  /•   T         1    triidic- 

oiie  way,  then,  in  which  Joseph  might  have  been  son  of  Jacob  tiou. 
and  also  son  of  Heli.  He  might  have  been  real  son  of  one 
anl  levirate  son  of  the  other,  or  he  might  have  been  real  son 
of  one  and  grandson  of  the  other.  As  respects  the  (piestion 
of  contradiction,  it  matters  not  which  of  these  is  the  true 
rehitionship  ;  for  the  apjicarance  of  contradiction  is  removed 
in  either  case,  and  the  question  of  contradiction  is  the  oidv 
one  with  which  we  are  now  concerned. 

The   fourth  sense  of  the  word  son    mentioned  above   has  Another 

Id'  •  1  •       •        r  'I  cxplana- 

not  SO  much  Scripture  evidence  in  its  favor,  yet  it  has  some;ii«"' 

'  As  Elimelech  was  of  Bethlehem-    there,  he  must  have  Veen  a  Hncal 
Judah,  and  was  the  owner  of  lands   descendant  of  Judah. 


^54  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

for  king  Saul  repeatedly  calkd  David  his  son,  though  ho  was 
his  son-iu-law.^  As  the  Hebrew  has  no  distinctive  word  for 
son-in-law,  but  uses  for  this  and  similar  relationships  a  word 
which  means  a  kinsman  by  marriage,  the  term  son  might  well 
be  employed  in  this  way;  and  Saul's  use  of  it  shows  that  at 
least  it  was  not  unauthorized.  Joseph,  then,  might  have  been 
son-in-law  of  Heli,  and  son  of  Jacob;  and  thus  in  another 
way  the  appearance  of  contradiction  is  removed.  In  this  case, 
too,  Jesus  would  inherit  the  blood  oC  David  through  his 
mother;  and  to  set  forth  this  fact  would  \)v  an  adequate 
motive  for  the  insertion  of  Luke's  genealogy. 
I'.'ubie  Against  all  three  of  these  explanations,  any  one  of  which 

Ghe^woJd  being  accepted,  the  charge  of  contradiction  must  be  abandoned, 
^°"-  the  objection  has  been  persistently  urged,  that  they  all  involve 
the  use  of  the  term  son  in  two  or  more  different  senses  in  the 
same  connection.  This  is  true  as  to  our  own  usage,  but  not 
as  to  the  Jewish  usage;  for  in  Jewish  usage  the  term  has,  as 
we  have  seen,  a  range  of  meanin<^  which  covers  all  these 
relationships,  and  one  has  to  determine  by  the  context,  or  by 
what  is  known  in  each  instance  from  other  sources,  which  one 
of  these  it  designates.  We  have  u  parallel  to  it  in  the  word 
begat  as  used  in  Matthew's  genealogy.  When  he  says  that 
David  begat  Solomon,  he  employs  the  word  in  the  sense  which 
we  attach  to  it ;  but  when  he  says  in  the  same  sentence  that 
TTzziah  begat  Jotham,  where  three  interv^ening  generations  are 
omitted,  he  uses  the  word  in  a  different  sense  from  ours,  but 
in  the  saine  Hebrew  sense;  for  in  Hebrew  it  moans  nothing 
more  than  that  one  is  the  progenitor  of  another,  as  son  means 
that  one  is  the  descendant  of  another. 
The  (lif-  It  has  been  urged,  as  a  still  further  objection  to  the  ])re- 

I'' |^'»<-ai-  ceding  explanations,  that  the  same  difficulty  which  attaclies  to 
the  parentage  of  Joseph  attaches  also  to  that  of  Shealtiel, 
who  is  called  son  of  Jechoniah,  and  also  sou  of  Neri  (Matt.  i. 
12;  Ijuke  iii.  27);  and  that  this  involves  the  supposition  of 
two  levirate  marriages,  or  something  of  the  kind,  in  the  same 
genealogy.  This  is  true;  but  what  of  it?  As  we  have  just 
seen,  there  is  still  another  instance  higher  up  in  the  list  where 
'I.  Sam.  .xxiv.  Ifi;  xxvi.  17,  21,  25. 


NKW     IKSTAMKNT    I'.OOKS. 


^.K 


a  leviratc  marriage  certainly  tuoi<  place,  and  why  should  it  be 
thought  strange  that  such  should  be  the  case  in  a  family 
whose  genealogy  is  traced  through  two  thousand  years?  In- 
deed, there  would  have  been  still  another  of  the  kind  in  this 
very  list,  if  Jndah  had  complied  with  his  promise  to  Tamar 
in  regard  to  his  son  Slielah ;  for  in  that  case  her  son  Perez 
would  have  been  begotten  in  a  leviratc  marriage  by  Shelah, 
instead  of  being  begotten  by  Judah  himself.'  Jj'^'^ 

We  now  see  that  while  there  has  been  from  almost  the  JJ|l^j^'['^; 
beginning  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  exact  sense  in^^y.^J^ 
which  Joseph  was  the  son^of  Jacob  and  also  of  Heli,  and  this 
because  of  the  ambiguous  use  of  the  word  son  by  Hebrew 
writers,  this  very  ambiguity  precludes  the  charge  of  contra- 
diction, and  lifts  these  genealogies  above  the  reach  of  the 
weapons  of  unbelief.  As  to  the 

'■  early 

2.  Luke  represents  Jose})h  and  Mary  as  residing  before  ^"^f**;,"* 
the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Xazarcth,  and  as  returning  to  this  their ^|',*|^. 
home  after  the  birth  in  Bethlehem  (i.  20,  27;  ii.  4,  39). 
Matthew  says  nothing  of  this  previous  residence  in  Nazareth, 
and  it  is  claimed  that,  in  contradiction  to  Luke,  he  represents 
them  as  having  resided  permanently  in  Bethlehem  until  after 
the  flight  into  Egypt,  when  they  resorted  to  Nazareth  through 
fear  of  Archelaus.-  It  is  true  that  Matthew  represents  them 
as  being  in  Bethlehem  when  the  child  was  born,  and  as  at 
fir.^t  purposing  to  live  there  after  the  return  from  Egypt;  and 
from  this  we  might,  if  we  had  no  Gospel  but  Matthew's, 
infer  that  Bethlehem  had  been  their  home;  just  as,  if  we  had 
no  narrative  but  Mark's,  we  would  not  know  that  they  had 
been  in  Betlilehem  at  all  ;  but  the  inference  would  only  be  an 
as.sumption  grounded  on  the  silence  of  the  writer;  for 
Matthew  says  absolutely  nothing  as  to  the  place  of  residence 
before  the  birth  (i.  18-2o).  The  argument  then  is  this: 
Luke  says  that  tiie  residence  of  the  couple  was  Nazareth ; 
Matthew  does  not  .say  where  it  was;  therefore  Matthew  con- 
tradicts Luke!  If  we  wished  to  extend  the  line  of  argu- 
ment, we  might  add  :      Matthew  and  Luke  .say   the  child    was 

'  See  the  arcouiit  i)t  .Fiiilali's  fain-    coMiparc    l.iikc   iii.  :*.:'.;    Matt.   i.  ;j. 
ily,  Gen.  xxxviii.  <;-l.");  L'o-L'it ;  aixl        '  Strauss.  \>tr  I. if,,  ii.  21. 


:,<;  CREDIBILITY   OF    THE 


l)oru  in  Bethlehem;  Mark  does  not  say  where  ho  was  born; 
therefore  Mark  contradicts  both  Luke  and  Matthew. 
As  to  the  3.  The  next  alleged  contridiction,  taken  in  order  of  time, 
Egypt!"  °  is  that  between  Matthew  and  Luke  about  the  movements  of 
Joseph  soon  after  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Luke  represents  him 
as  taking  the  child,  at  the  end  of  forty  days,  to  Jerusalem  for 
presentation  in  the  temple ;  and  he  says  that  "  when  they  had 
accomplished  all  things  that  were  according  to  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  to  their  own 
city  Nazareth "  (ii.  22-39,  comp.  Lev.  xii.  1-4).  It  is 
claimed  that  if  this  preceded  the  flight  into  Egypt  (the  only 
tenable  supposition),  the  latter  incident,  and  the  coming  of 
the  wise  men  which  led  to  it,  are  contradicted  by  Luke's 
assertion  that  from  the  temple  they  went  immediately  back  to 
Nazareth.'  But  unfortunately  tor  this  assertion,  Luke  does 
not  say  that  they  went  "  immediately"  back  to  Nazareth,  He 
uses  no  adverb  of  time,  and  no  expression  of  any  kind  to 
indicate  how  soon  the  return  to  Nazareth  took  place.  The 
interval,  wliether  long  or  short,  is  passed  over  in  silence,  and 
it  may  therefore  have  been  either  a  long  one  or  a  short  one. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  interval  from  being  long 
enough  for  the  arrival  of  the  magi,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and 
the  return  therefrom.  The  accounts  do  "admit  of  being  in- 
corporate into  one  another,"  and  therefore  there  is  no  contra- 
diction between  them. 
In  the  4.   Tn  the  accounts  by  Matthew  and   liuke  of  the  healing 

'eim/ri-  of  the  ccnturion's  servant  there  are  two  apparent  discrep- 
vaiiV"^'  ancies  which  have  been  habiiually  treated  by  unfriendly 
critics  as  contradictions.  First,  Matthew  says  that  the 
centurion  "  came  to  him,  beseeching  him,  and  saying.  Lord, 
my  servant  lieth  in  the  house  sick  of  the  palsy,  grievously 
tormented  ;  "  while  Luke  says  that  he  sent  unto  Jesus  "  elders 
of  the  Jews,  asking  him  that  he  would  come  and  save  his 
servant."  Second,  Matthew  says  that  when  Jesus  proposed 
to  go  to  the  house  and  heal  the  servant,  the  centurion  said, 
"  Tvord,  I  am  not  wortliy  that  thou  shouldst  come  under  my 
roof;"  wliile  Luke  says  ti)at  when  Jesus  was  now  not  far 
'  Strauss,  Nnr  TJfr,  ii.  02;   Newmtui,  Plm^rn  of  F'litli,  7!l. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  57 

from  the  house,  tlie  crnturion  *  sent  irieuds  to  him,  saying  to 
him.  Lord,  trouble  not  thyself:  for  I  am  not  worthy  that  tliou 
shouidst  come  under  my  roof."  This  should  never  have 
occasioned  the  least  trouble  to  any  one  inclined  to  do  justice 
to  the  two  writers.  It  is  one  of  the  most  common  features  of 
condensed  narration  to  represent  a  man  as  saying  what  he 
says  til  rough  another  who  speaks  in  his  name.  This  is  what 
Matthew  does  in  his  condensed  account  of  this  cure ;  while 
Luke,  wishing  to  bring  out  in  the  boldest  relief  the  great 
faith  of  the  centurion,  and  in  connection  with  it  two  traits  of 
his  character  left  out  of  view  by  Mattliew,  his  generosity  and 
his  liberality,  names  the  messengers  through  whom  he  prefers 
his  request,  and  quotes  from  their  lips  the  statement,  "  He  is 
worthy  that  thou  shouldst  do  this  for  him:  for  he  loveth  our 
nation,  and  himself  built  us  our  synagogue."  His  faith  is 
brought  out  fully  by  the  fact  that  he  in  the  first  place  thought 
himself  unworthy  to  come  in  person  to  speak  to  Jesus,  and  in 
the  second  place  thouglit  himself  unworthy  that  Jesus  should 
come  under  his  roof.  The  latter  he  did  not  think  of  (ill  Jesus 
was  already  near  his  house,  when  he  began  to  realize  what  was 
about  to  take  place,  and  shrank  from  it.  This  appearance  of 
discrepancy,  then,  like  so  many  others,  grows  entirely  out  of 
the  more  laborate  account  given  by  one  of  the  writers,  in 
carrying  out  the  ditferent  purpose  for  which  he  mentions  the 
incident. 

5.  There  are  several    instances  in  which   Matthew  siieaks -vs  to  the 

-,  ...  .  i-iTii  "limber 

or  two   persons  or   tilings   in  a   transaction,  while    Luke  and  iieaied  in 
-_,.,  ...  i/>i  some  in- 

Mark   in   (lescribuig  the  same   speak    of  only  one ;  and   these^taiices. 

have  been  treated  even  by  eminent  critics  as  grave  discrepan- 
cies. For  example,  Matthew  says  there  were  two  demoniacs 
healed  in  the  land  of  the  Gadarenes  (viii.  28)  ;  two  blind  men 
healed  at  Jericho  (xx.  30)  ;  and  two  asses  brought  to  Jesus  for 
his  ride  into  Jerusalem  (xxi.  7);  while  Mark  and  Luke  men- 
tion only  one  in  each  instance.  It  is  obvious  at  a  glance  that 
there  is  no  contradiction  here,  and  that  the  difference  lies  only 
in  this,  that  Mark  an<l  Luke  mention  the  more  fierce  of  the 
two  (lemnniaes,  saying  nothing  of  tlie  other:  that  thev  men- 
tion by  name  the  blind  man  who  was  will  known  (Mark  x.  46), 


As  to  the 
words  of 


58  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

saying  nothing  of  the  one  who  was  not;  and  that  they  men- 
tion the  ass  whicli  Jesus  rode,  saying  nothing  of  the  one  which 
he  did  not  ride.  It  is  a  difference  characteristic  of  these  two 
writers  as  distinguished  from  Matthew.  The  latter,  for 
instance,  uses  the  plural  number  of  seeds  in  the  parable  of  the 
sower  (xiii.  4-7),  and  of  the  servants  sent  for  fruits  in  the 
parable  of  the  wicked  husbandmen  (xxi.  34-37),  while  Mark 
and  Luke  in  each  instance  use  the  singular  (Mark  iv.  3-7 ; 
Luke  viii.  5-7) ;  and  in  case  of  the  cures  in  Dccapolis, 
Matthew  speaks  of  a  multitude  being  healed  (xv.  29-31), 
while  Mark  selects  a  single  one  of  the  number  and  describes 
the  process  of  his  cure  (vii.  31 — viii.  3).  Instead  of  being 
contradictions,  they  are  examples  of  the  more  specific  style  of 
delineation  employed  by  Mark  and  Luke. 

6.  Another  alleged  contradiction,  as  trivial,  and  yet  as 
Jairus.  gravely  set  forth  as  the  preceding,  is  found  in  the  remarks 
ascribed  to  Jairus  concerning  his  little  daughter  when  he 
asked  Jesus  to  heal  her.  In  Matthew  he  says,  "  My  daughter 
is  even  now  dead;"  in  Mark,  "My  little  daughter  is  at  the 
point  of  death."  This  case  is  a  fair  representative  of  several 
others  in  which  remarks  apparently  inconsistent  are  ascribed 
to  the  same  person.  In  all  such  cases  fair  dealing  requires  us 
to  allow  both  remarks  to  have  been  made  if  we  fairly  can  ; 
and  surely  we  can  in  this  instance ;  for  the  child  was  so 
nearly  dead  that  she  died  before  the  father,  accompanied  by 
Jesus,  returned  to  the  house;  and  how  natural  it  would  be  for 
the  father,  knowing  the  extremity  she  was  in,  to  say  in  the 
vehemence  of  his  entreaty,  "■  My  daughter  is  at  the  point  of 
death ;  she  is  even  now  dead ;  but  come  and  lay  thy  hands  on 
her,  and  she  shall  live." 
wind**'''  7.  The  place  of  curing  the  blind  man  at  Jericho,  whether 
Jericho  ^^  Jesus  entered  the  city,  apparently  stated  by  l^uke,  or  as  he 
went  out,  exj)ressly  stated  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  has  long 
been  held  uj)  as  a  palpable  contradiction  ;  but  on  examination 
we  shall  find  that,  instead  of  being  such,  the  incident  fur- 
nishes no  mean  evidence  of  the  extreme  exact nesss-  of  these 
writers.  If  we  examine  Luke's  account  closely,  we  find  that 
he  does  not,  as  would  aj»pear  at  first  glance,  locate   this  (Hire 


NEW      rKSTAMKNT    BOOKS.  59 

at  the  entrance  into  the  eity  ;  on  the  contrary,  liis  representa- 
tion implies  that  it  wa.s  eilected  elsewhere.  Notice,  Hrst,  that 
as  Jesus  drew  nigh  to  the  city,  the  man  was  sitting  by  the 
wayside  begging.  Second,  he  ascertained  by  hearing,  his 
only  way  to  learn  it,  that  a  multitude  was  jiassing  by.  This 
he  could  know  only  by  the  noise  they  were  making,  or  by 
the  fact  that  many  had  j)asse(l  by  and  still  they  were  passing. 
But  they  were  not  making  a  noise,  as  appears  from  the  fact 
that  when  he  began  to  maUe  a  noise  they  rebuked  him  and 
insisted  that  he  should  hold  his  peace.  They  were  evidently 
intent,  at  least  those  near  Jesus,  on  hearing  the  Master's 
words.  He  knew  that  it  was  a  multitude,  then,  by  the 
number  that  had  already  passed,  while  others  were  still  passing ; 
and  he  asked  what  it  meant.  When  he  learned  that  Jesus 
was  passing  by,  he  cried  out  for  mercy,  and  it  was  "they  that 
went  before"  who  rebuked  him,  and  told  him  to  hold  hi-; 
peace.  How  could  this  be,  when  they  who  went  before  had 
already  gone  far  past  the  man  before  he  began  to  cry  out? 
It  eould  only  be  by  a  change  of  relative  position,  in  which  the 
blind  man  had  got  before  tlic  multitude,  so  that  he  cried  out 
as  tliey  approached  him  again,  and  was  rebuked  by  those  in 
the  front  of  the  moving  column.  Luke,  in  giving  compact- 
ness to  his  recital,  has  passed  in  silence  over  this  change  of 
position,  leaving  it  as  an  unimportant  detail,  to  be  discovered 
or  not  by  inference  from  his  description.  And  as  to  the 
place  of  healing,  he  leaves  this  in  tiie  dark,  l)nt  the  accounts 
of  Mattiiew  and  Mark  step  in,  and  in  the  most  incidental 
way  6U])i  ly  tlu'  missing  link  by  saying  that  it  was  as  he  went 
out  of  the  city.  This  not  only  fills  out  Luke's  account, — 
but  it  furnishes  time  and  opportunity  for  the  change  of 
relative  place  which  Luke's  account  implies;  for  it  gives  the 
man  time  to  get  around  to  the  gate  of  exit  while  Jesus  and 
his  large  following  were  passing  through  the  city.  Further- 
more, the  next  paragraph  in  Luke,  in  which  he  resumes  the 
march  of  Jesus  and  his  company  where  he  had  ceased  to  trace 
it  when  he  began  the  account  of  the  blind  man,  shows  that 
while  passing  through  Jericho  he  stopped,  apparently  I'or  a 
meal,  at   the   house   of  Zacch:eus,  thus  giving  ample   lime   for 


60  CRKDiP.rr.iTY  of  tiir 

the  blind  man's  movement.  The  fact  now  apparent,  that  the 
two  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark  thus  supply  a  missing 
link  in  that  of  Luke,  so  that  the  three  combine  to  complete 
the  story  where  they  appeared  to  be  inconsistent,  furnishes 
striking  evidence  that  all  three  are  strictly  accurate.  The 
different  parts  of  a  l)roken  story  fit  one  another  only  when 
the  story  is  true, 
ilmeoi'^  8.  The  Lord's  prediction  of  Peter's  denial  is  made  to 
Pe^°*"°  represent  two  contradictions,  one  as  to  the  time  of  it,  and  one 
as  to  the  terms  of  it.  It  is  said  that  while  Luke  and  John 
unequivocally  represent  it  as  being  uttered  at  the  supper, 
Matthew  and  Mark  say  it  was  uttered  on  the  way  to  the 
mount  of  Olives.'  The  former  part  of  this  statement  is  true 
(Luke  xxii.  31-34,  39;  Jolin  xiii.  36-38;  xiv.  31);  but  the 
latter  is  not.  Matthew  and  Mark  both  follow  the  account 
of  the  Lord's  supi>er  with  the  statement  in  indentical  words: 
"  And  when  they  had  sung  a  hymn,  they  went  out  unto  the 
mount  of  Olives;"  but  then,  as  if  they  had  forgotten  an  item 
and  returned  to  it,  they  mention  the  prediction,  and,  resuming 
the  thread  of  the  narrative  where  it  was  broken,  they  say, 
"Then  cometh  Jesus  with  them  to  a  place  called  Gethsem- 
ane,"  which  place,  as  we  know  by  the  topography,  was  the 
first  point  at  which  they  touched  the  mount  of  Olives. 
Really,  then,  the  prediction,  according  to  their  accounts,  took 
place  within  the  room  of  the  supper.  (Matt.  xxvi.  30-36 ; 
Mark  xiv.  26-32.) 
.\8tothu         As  regards  the  terms  of  this   prediction,  all  have  it  that 

time  of  "  ^  ' 

rfeiu-ir  ^^^^  three  denials  should  occur  before  the  cock  should  crow, 
except  Mark,  who  has  it,  "  Before  the  cock  crow  twice,  thou 
shalt  deny  me  thrice."  Now  no  two  of  the  writers  quote  the 
words  exactly  alike;  and  this  shows  that  at  least  three  of 
them  quot<'  them  freely,  not  giving  the  exact  words.  In  such 
cases  the  most  precise  form,  if  any,  is  likely  to  be  the  exact 
one.  In  this  instance,  Mark's  being  the  most  precise,  we  may 
presume  tliat  he  (piotes  the  very  words  of  Jesus,  and  that  the 
others  quote  the  idea  without  aiming  at  exactness.  The  idea 
expressed  in  all  is  that  the  denial  should  take  j)lace  about  the 
'  Strands.  Xrn-   l.ifr.  ji    '.Vl''>,  .'>"_M. 


NFW    TKSTA.MKNT    MOORS.  61 

time  of  coek-c rowing.  XoW  it  i.s  well  known  by  every  one 
who  has  often  listened  to  this  morning  music,  that  almost 
iuvariablv  an  early  cock  crows,  but  is  not  answered  for  a 
while  by  others.  After  an  interval  another  crows,  then 
another,  and  finally  there  is  a  chorus  from  all  the  cocks  in  the 
neighborhood.  Jesus  located  the  three  denials  between  the 
first  two  erowings  and  the  general  chorus;  Mark  reports  him 
literally,  while  the  others  give  the  substance,  but  all  indicate 
the  same  time.  There  is  no  contradiction,  then,  but  only  free 
quotations  without  change  of  the  thought. 

9.  No   two    of  the  ()losi)els  quote   tlic   in.scription  on   the  As  to  im- 

....  ,        late'n  ill- 

cross  in  precisely  the  same  words,  and   here  it  is  claimed  that  scription. 

we   have   anotlier  contradiction.      In    order    to  see  the  exact 

amount  of  difference  between  the  several  quotations,  we  place 

them  side  by  side. 

Matthew:  This  is  Jesus        the  King  of  the  Jews. 

Mark  :  The  King  of  the  Je\vs. 

Luke:  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews. 

John :  Jesus  the  Nazarene,  the  King  of  the  Jews. 

At  a  glance  it  is  seen  that  the  essential  part,  that  which 
constituted  the  accusaticm,  that  he  claimeii  to  be  "  the  King  of 
the  Jews,"  is  the  same,  word  for  word  and  letter  for  letter,  in 
all  four,  the  difference  being  only  in  the  way  of  designating 
the  person  who  made  the  claim.  In  this  there  are  three 
variations  not  differing  at  all  in  meaning,  and  two  of  them 
agreeing  in  all  but  the  use  and  non-use  of  the  name  Jesus.  In 
meaning,  then,  there  is  no  difference  whatever;  and  the  slight 
difference  in  form  may  be  accounted  for  either  by  supposing 
that  all  but  one  aimed  only  at  qnotinu;  the  substance  of  the 
part  designating  the  person,  or  that  this  ])art  was  variously 
written  by  Pilate  himself  liatin  was  doubtless  his  native 
tongue,  and  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  forms  of  the  inscription 
were  translations.  At  least  two  of  the  variations  mav  have 
been  made  by  him  or  his  scribe  in  translating,  and  another 
may  have  been  made  by  one  of  the  Evangelists  in  translating 
from  his  translation.  Seeing,  then,  that  the  essential  part  is 
perfectly  preserved  by  all,  that  tlie  unessential  part  is  pre- 
served without  change   of  meaning  by  all,  antl  that  there  are 


62  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

three  ways  of  accouutiug  for  tli*  slight  verbal  variations  in  the 
latter  part  wiihout  charging  either  ignorance  or  inaccuracy  on 
the  writers,  all  appearance  of  contradiction  passes  away. 
As  to  the         10.  Much  more  ])laiisiblc  than  the  last  is  the  charge  of 

conduct  i  ° 

tuo^rob-  contradiction  between  Matthew  and  Luke  resi)ecting  the  con- 
bers.  ^|yg^  towards  Jesus  of  the  robbers  who  were  crucified  with  him. 
Matthew  and  Mark  both  say,  in  almost  identical  terms,  that 
"  the  robbers  that  were  crucified  with  him  cast  upon  him  the 
same  reproach"  (Matt,  xxvii.  44;  Mark  xv.  32).  Luke  says 
that  "  one  of  the  malefactors  that  were  hanged  railed  on  him," 
but  that  the  other  rebuked  him,  and  called  on  Jesus  to  remem- 
ber him  when  he  came  into  his  kingdom.  It  is  held  that 
there  is  here  a  contradiction,  and  that  the  conduct  ascribed  to 
the  penitent  robber  is  incredible.  Now  if,  as  is  very  com- 
monly affirmed,  Luke's  statement  had  been  that  only  one  rob- 
ber railed  at  him,'  the  contradiction  would  be  real ;  but  he 
does  not  so  assert.  He  merely  asserts  that  one  of  them  did 
so,  and  was  rebuked  by  his  fellow  ;  and  this  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  both  had  done  so  at  an  earlier 
moment.  It  can  not  be  denied  that  Matthew  and  Mark  may 
speak  of  what  took  place  at  the  beginning,  and  Luke  of  what 
occurred  at  a  later  hour  of  the  time  spent  on  the  cross.  This 
being  so,  both  of  the  robbers  may  have  joined  in  the  railing 
at  first,  and  one  may  have  continued  it  to  the  end,  while  the 
other  may  have  ceased,  and  toward  the  close  have  rebuked 
his  fellow.  As  this  is  possible,  we  must  give  the  writers  the 
benefit  of  it  before  we  pronounce  them  contradictory.  But 
this  is  not  only  possil>le,  it  is  even  probable ;  for  we  can 
readily  discover  motives  which  w(!re  likely  to  lead  to  this 
result  on  the  part  of  the  one  who  repented.  In  the  first 
agonies  of  crucifixion,  the  consideration  that  it  was  the  execu- 
tion of  Jesus  which  led  to  their  being  crucified  that  day, 
most  naturally  excited  the  wrath  of  both  against  him,  and 
caused  them  to  echo  the  outcries  of  tiie  mob.     It  was  quite 

'  "According  to  the  first  and  sec-  is  directly  contradicted  hv  the  third 

ondGofipels.the  rol)her8  joined  with  Synoptist,  who  states  that  only  one 

the  chief   priesta  and  scribes  and  of  the  malefactors  did  so."     (Sup. 

ciders  and  those  who  passed  by  in  Rd,,  iii.  tKii. 
niockin}^  and  reviling  Jesus.     This 


NEW     TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  63 

unnatural  that  one  of  them  should  oontiuue  these  outcries 
persistently ;.  but  it  was  most  natural  that,  as  the  weary 
moments  wore  away,  and  unavoidable  reflections  about  death 
and  eternity  came  over  them,  in  connection  with  the  remem- 
brance of  their  past  criminality,  they  should  cease  to  reproach 
their  fellow-sufferer,  and  turn  their  thoughts  to  God.  Luke's 
representation  as  to  one  of  them  is  just  what  we  should  ex- 
pect of  both  ;  and  instead  of  being  surprised  at  the  change 
which  come  over  one,  we  should  rather  be  surprised  that  it 
did  not  come  over  the  other  also.  Indeed  this  is  tiie  very 
feeling  expressed  by  the  penitent  robber  himself:  "Dost 
thou  not  even  fear  God,  seeing  thou  art  in  the  same  condem- 
nation? and  we  indeed  justly,  for  we  receive  the  due  reward 
of  our  deeds  ;  but  this  man  has  done  nothing  amiss."  Reflec- 
tion upon  their  own  wickedness  in  contrast  with  the  innocence 
of  Jesus,  and  indignation  at  the  continued  obduracy  of  his 
fellow,  are  the  two  thoughts  of  this  rebuke.  Seeing,  then, 
that  this  is  a  most  rational  hypothesis,  suggested  by  the 
circumstances  of  the  persons,  the  accounts  are  relieved  of  all 
ground  for  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  and  the  alleged  con- 
duct of  the  penitent  robber  is  thus  far  freed  from  all 
improbability.  As  to  the  appeal  which  he  made  to  Jesus, 
"Jesus,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom," j^'J^^^}.'^'"' 
it  is  a  much  worthier  ground  for  surprise  than  that  he  should  [ainj  not 
have  railed  at  Jesus  at  first  and  afterward  repented.  It  {'je'^^''^^' 
implies  belief  that  Jesus  was  yet  to  come  in  his  kingdom, 
though  now  he  was  in  the  agonies  of  death,  and  the  petitioner 
believed  that  he  would  soon  be  dead.  This  belief,  as  has  been 
truly  remarked,  transcended  that  of  the  apostles  themselves.' 
Is  it  incredible?  If  not,  how  had  the  roi)ber  acquired  it? 
It  is  not  incumbent  on  us  to  trace  the  process  by  which  he 
had  acquired   it  ;  it   is  only  necessary  to  show  that  it  is  jxtssi- 

'  "  This  I'xemplary  rubber  speaks  AV/.,  iii.  41()).    "  Here  then  we  have 

like   an    Apostle,   and    in    prayinjj  a  criminal,  who  undoubtedly  came 

Jesus  as  the  Messiah  to  remember  now  for  the  first  time  into  contact 

him  when  ho  came  into  his  king-  with  Jesus,  undersfandinj;  without 

dom,  he  shows   much   more  th.an  preliminary  instruction  thedoctrine 

npo-tolie  appreciation  of  the  claims  of  a  sufTering  and  dying  Messiah." 

and    c'iara(Mer    of    Jesus."      (Sup.  (Strauss,  .V.  />.,  ii.  'Mb). 


64  CREDIBIIJTV    OF    THE 

ble  for  hira  to  have  done  so.  His  remark  to  iiis  fellow  rob- 
ber, "This  man  has  done  nothing  amiss,"  implies  much  pre- 
vious knowledge  of  Jesus ;  for  he  could  not  have  learned  it 
by  the  events  of  that  day,  even  had  he  been  a  free  man.  He 
must  have  learned  it  before  his  imprisonment.  Even  while 
he  was  carrying  on  his  nefarious  business  of  highway  robbery, 
he  may  have  mingled  very  often  in  the  crowds  which  gathered 
about  Jesus,  and  by  this  means  become  well  instructed  in  his 
teaching.  He  may,  indeed,  have  believed  on  him  as  many 
wicked  men  now  believe  ;  and  it  is  not  going  farther  than 
facts  often  witnessed  at  the  present  day,  to  suppose  that  he 
had,  under  the  influence  of  that  faith,  abandoned  his  course 
of  crime  before  he  was  arrested  and  condemned  for  it.  Such 
oi)portunities  may  certainly  have  been  within  his  reach,  and 
although  they  would  scarcely  enable  him  to  understand  the 
doctrine  of  the  kingdom  fully,  they  may  have  enabled  him  to 
form  the  conception  of  it  expressed  in  his  dying  petition.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  this  conception  was  altogether 
correct.  It  probably  was  about  this:  that  the  kingdom  which 
Jesus  had  failed  to  establish  on  earth  he  would,  by  some 
means  and  in  some  undefined  way,  establish  in  the  spirit  world 
into  whicli  he  was  about  to  enter.  The  thief  may  have  had  a 
very  vague  idea  as  to  the  nature  of  that  kingdom,  and  yet, 
from  the  strong  evidences  which  Jesus  had  given  of  his  power 
and  goodness,  have  believed  that  something  called  a  kingdom 
would  yet  be  established,  and  that,  whatever  it  was,  and 
wherever  it  was  to  be,  there  would  be  life  and  peace  within  it. 
In  the  greatest  act  of  Ahraiiam's  faith,  his  conception  was  a 
mistaken  one;  for  he  believed  that  God  would  raise  up  Isaac 
from  the  dead,  whereas  God  did  not  intend  that  Isaac  should 
die  ;  yet  the  faith  of  Abraham  was  the  more  highly  com- 
mended on  this  very  account.  So,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  dying  robber's  conception  of  the  kingdom,  he  believed 
that  Jesus,  notwithstanding  his  death,  would  establish  one, 
and  this  procured  for  him  the  blessing.  After  all,  then,  the 
repentance  and  faith  of  the  penitent  robber  is  not  so  wonder- 
ful as  the  obduracy  of  the  one  who  continued  to  rail  at  the 
Son  of  God  in  the  vi-ry  agonies  of  his  own  death. 


NEW    TESTAMKNT    BOOKS,  65 

We  have  now  considered  all  of  the  alleged  contradictions 
between  our  four  (iospels  which  we  think  worthy  of  atten- 
tion in  this  work,  except  those  in  the  accounts  of  the  resur- 
rection. There  are  no  others,  I  believe,  that  can  not  be 
disposed  of  as  easily  as  we  have  disposed  of  these,  and  as  sat- 
isfactorily; there  are  none  which  a  thoughtful  young  person, 
after  studying  these,  can  not  dispose  of  without  assistance:  we 
shall  therefore  turn  next  to  some  which  are  said  to  exist 
between  the  Gos])els  and  Acts  of  Apostles,  and  between  me 
latter  book  and  some  of  Paul's  Epistles. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

* 

ALLEGED  CONTRADICTIONS    BETWEEN    ACTS   AND   OTHER 

BOOKS. 


Acts  There  is  no  writer  in  the  New  Testament  the  oredibilitv 

tie  reel  y  •■ 

assailed,  ^f  ^yhose  Statements  lias  been  so  fiercely  assailed  by  recent 
unfriendly  critics  as  liave  those  of  the  author  of  Acts.  We 
desire  to  give  the  charges  of  his  enemies  fair  consideration, 
and  to  form  an  intelligent  conclusion  as  to  their  merits. 

of^ratil'ii-        Christian  Baur,  followed   by  later  rationalists  in  general, 

ahsts.  asserts  that  the  design  of  the  author  was  not  to  write  a  trutii- 
ful  history,  but  to  defend  the  Apostle  Paul  against  the  attacks 
and  accusations  of  the  Judaizing  party,  at  the  head  of  which 
they  place  the  Apostle  Peter;  and  that  in  carrying  out  this 
))urpose  he  did  not  hesitate  to  falsify  history  when  it  suited 
him  to  do  so.'  They  seek  to  sustain  the  charge  of  falsifying 
history  by  maintaining  that  he  frequently  contradicts  both 
himself  and  other  writers,  especially  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Wlicther  the  credibility  of  the  book  can  be  maintained 
depends  on  the  reality  of  these  alleged  contradictions,  and  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  consider  those  whicli  arc  relied  on  most 
implicitly. 

I.    Contradictions  of  Matthew  and  of  himself. 

deatL'or*^  1-  ^^'^G  first  notice  an  alleged  contradiction  between  Acts 
and  Matthew  in  regard  to  the  death  of  Judas.  An  ai)pe:ir- 
auce  of  contradiction  is  apparent  to  every  reader  of  the  tw<» 
accounts;  for  while  Matthew  represents  Judas  as  hanging 
himself  (xxvii.  5),  it  is  said  in  Acts  that  he  fell  headlong,  and 
burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  that  all  his  bowels  gushed  out 

'Baur,  Lifi'  and  Woi-Ich  of  J'mil,  i.  (i,  10;   Renan,  Ajmlles,  20,  27;  Sup. 
RpL,  iii.  <12,  r.4. 


Jiidiis. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  67 

(Acts  i.  18).  But  instead  ot"  being  a  contradiction,  tlio  latter 
statement  is  only  a  supplement  to  the  former.  Falling  head- 
long would  not  cause  a  man  to  burst  asunder,  unless  some- 
thing had  previously  occurred  to  weaken  the  wall  of  his 
bowels,  or  unless  the  fall  was  from  a  great  elevation.  But 
both  of  these  conditions  are  supplied  l)y  Matthew's  account: 
for  if  he  hung  himself,  this  would  elevate  him  some  feet 
above  the  ground  ;  and  if  he  remained  hanging  a  day  or  two, 
which  would  be  very  probable,  this  would  weaken  the  walls 
of  his  abdomen,  so  that  a  fall,  whether  effected  by  the  break- 
ing of  the  cord,  or  the  limb,  or  the  parting  of  his  neck, 
would  cause  the  result  in  question.  The  two  accounts  are 
therefore  harmonious,  and  not  only  so,  but  the  horrible  result 
stated  in  the  one  is  accounted  for -by  the  fact  mentioned  in  the 
other. 

But  the  two  accounts  differ  also  in  reference  to  the  pur- as  to  the 
chase  of  the  potter's  field,  and  the  origin  of  its  name,  Akeldama,  of  Akei- 

'  °  '  '  dama. 

the  Field  of  Blood.  Matthew  says  that  it  was  bought  by 
the  chief  priests  with  the  money  which  Judas  returned  to 
them,  and  that  for  this  reason  it  was  called  the  field  of  blood  ; 
while  in  Acts  it  is  said  that  Judas  bought  it  "with  the  reward 
of  iniquity"  (the  same  money),  and  that  this,  together  with 
his  falling  there,  caused  it  to  receive  the  name  (Matt,  xxvii. 
<)-9  ;  Acts  i.  18,  19).  But  here  there  is  no  contradiction;  for 
if  Matthew's  account  of  the  purchase  is  true,  that  in  Acts  is 
also  true,  with  this  only  difference,  that  Judas  bought  the 
field  indirectly,  it  being  boiight  with  his  money,  and  in  con- 
secpience  of  his  vain  attempt  to  return  the  money  to  the 
priests;  and  as  for  the  name,  the  account  in  Acts  only  fiu- 
nishes  an  additional  and  very  good  reason  for  calling  the 
loathsome  sj)ot  Akeldama.  It  must  be  admiltetl  that  the 
account  in  Acts  would  be  misleading  to  persons  not  ac- 
quainted with  that  in  Matthew;  but  Luke's  first  readers  were 
not  thus  uninformed,  and  his  present  readers  have  Matthew's 
account  before  them  and  can  combine  the  two  if  they  will.'    . 

'  As  a  curious  ilhistration  of  the  resolve  these  simple  narratives  of 
confusion  into  which  men  of  the  Scriptures  into  legends,  and 
{.'i-nins   fall  when  they  attempt  to    thus  ri.l)  tin  in  of  historical  verity, 


68  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

"^^^o  .  It    should    be  observed  that  while  the    account  in   Acts 

words  in 

question  ^yhjch  we  have  been  considering  is  printed  in  the  midst  of  a 
Peters,  gpeecli  made  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  the  words  concerning 
Judas  are  an  interpolation  in  the  speech  by  the  author  of 
Acts.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  Akeldama  is  translated 
into  Greek,  and  this  could  not  have  been  done  by  Peter,  who 
was  speaking  to  Hebrews;  but  Luke,  writing  to  a  Greek, 
would  be  constrained  to  translate  this  Hebrew  word.  It 
suits  the  purpose  of  skeptical  writers  to  deny  this,  and  to 
maintain  that  the  author  of  Acts  here  puts  into  Peter's  mouth 
a  speech  which  he  could  not  have  made.'  But  this  assump- 
tion is  equivalent  to  charging  the  author  with  a  blunder 
which  the  most  stupid  writer  could  scarcely  commit — the 
blunder  of  making  Peter  speak  to  Jews  in  their  own  tongue, 
and  translate  one  of  their  familiar  Avords  into  a  foreign 
tongue  to  enable  them  to  understand  it ;  and  in  doing  so  to 
speak  of  the  Hebrew  language,  which  was  the  native  tongue 
both  of  himself  and  his  hearer.-,  as  ^' their  language." 
Whether  this  author  was  Luke  or  some  one  else,  if  he  had 
ordinary  common  sense  he  eould  not  have  been  guilty  of  a 
blunder  so  gro.ss. 
.\stotiie  2.  It  is  alleged  that  the  author  of  Acts  contradicts  himself 
in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  ascension.^  In  Acts  he  certainly 
represents  the  ascension  as  taking  place  forty  days  after  the 

it  is  well  to  notice  the  following  dropsy,  accompanied  by  disgusting 
passage  in  Renan:  "As  to  the  circumstances,  wliich  were  regarded 
wretched  Judas  of  Kerioth,  there  as  a  chastisement  of  heaven.  The 
were  terril)le  traditions  of  iiis  death,  desire  to  show  in  the  case  of  Judas 
it  it  said  that  with  the  price  of  his  the  accomplishment  of  the  threats 
lierfidy  he  bought  a  lit-Kl  in  the  which  the  Psalmist  pronounced 
environs  of  Jeru.salem.  There  was  against  the  perfidious  friend,  may 
indeed  to  tlie  south  of  Mount  Sion  have  originated  these  legends.  It 
a  place  called  Hakeldama  (the  field  may  be  that  Judas  retired  upon  his 
of  l)lood).  It  was  supposed  that  property  at  Hakeldama,  led  a  peace- 
this  was  the  property  purchased  by  ful  and  obscure  life,  while  his 
the  traitor.  According  to  one  former  friends  were  conquering  the 
tradition  he  killed  liimself.  Accord-  world  and  spreading  the  report  of 
ing  to  another,  he  had  a  fall  in  his  his  infamy."  (Life  of  Jesus,  359, 
field,  in  consequence  of  which  his  .300). 
bowels  pushed  out.  According  to  ^  Sup.  Rd.,  iii.  100,  100. 
others,    he   died    of    a    species    of        'Rei\nn,  A/xiHllrft, '20. 


time  of 
the  as- 
cension. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    ItOOKS.  69 

resurrection  (i.  3-9),  and  it  is  affirmed  that  in  the  Gospel  he 
represents  it  as  occurring  on  the  same  day  as  the  resurrection. 
This  is  another  instance  in  which  the  charge  involves  the 
grossest  stupidity  on  Luke's  part,  if  it  is  true;  for  both 
narratives  are  addressed  to  the  same  person,  Theophilus,  and 
the  matter  of  the  ascension  is  made  conspicuous  in  both. 
The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that  in  the  Gospel  he  does  not  s;iy 
how  long  the  interval  was,  but  he  passes  from  the  account  of 
the  first  meeting  with  the  Eleven  to  that  which  ended  with 
the  ascension  without  noting  that  there  was  an  interval, 
reserving  to  his  later  account  a  statement  of  the  details.  If, 
when  Theophilus  read  the  first  account,  he  had  concluded  that 
the  ascension  took  place  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  when 
he  received  the  second  he  could  but  conclude  that  he  had  mis- 
understood the  first  on  account  of  its  brevity.  He  could  not 
have  concluded  that  the  writer  was  telling  two  contradictory 
stories;  for  this  could  but  discredit  all  that  he  narrated;  and 
he  certainly  wrote  with  the  hope  of  being  believed. 

3.  It  is  claimed  that  Luke  contradicts  himself  in  the  three  paufs 
accounts  of  Paul's  conversion,  it  being  assumed  that  the  twofoi™^"" 
which  are  represented  as  given  by  Paul  himself  were  really  sus^mef 
composed  by  the  author  of  the  book.     The  specifications  are  ^'^ 
these  :  one  account  has  it  that  those  who  journeyed  with  Paul 
"stood  speechless;"  the  other,  "that  all  fell  to  the  earth;" 
one,  that  these  companions  heard  the  voice,  but  saw  no  man  ; 
the    other,   that    they    heard    not    the  voice  (ix.  7 ;  xxii.  9; 
xxvi.  14).'     As  to  the  latter  point  of  difference,  nothing  in 
speech  is  much   more  common  than  to  use  the  word  hear  in 
two  slightly  different  senses,  one  for  hearing  the  mere  sound 
of  a  voice,  and  the  other  for  so  hearing  it  as  to  know  what  is 
said.     We  hear  a  person  speak  to  us,  and  we  answer,  "  I  did 
not  hear  you."     No  one  accuses  us  of  a  false  answer,  becaui^e 
such    is   the    usage    of  the  word    hear.     So,  in    the    present 
instance,  the  companions  of  Paul  heard  in  the  sense  of  catch- 
ing the  sound  of  the  voice,  but  they  heard  not  in  the  sense  of 
distinguishing  what  was  said.     No  one  dis|)osed  to  deal  fairly 
with  nn  author  would  think  of  eonsl ruing  this  as  a  contr.idic- 
'  liaur,  Poiii  i.  H0-H2.; 


As  to  tbu 
stay  in 
Arabia. 


70  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

tiou.  As  to  the  other  poiut,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Paul's  com- 
panions could  have  fallen  to  the  ground  at  the  beginning,  and 
have  stood  speechless  afterward;  and  the  fact  that  they  did 
not  understand  what  was  said  to  Paul  is  accounted  for  by  this 
consideration.  Wlien  all  fell,  and  the  companions  found  that 
they  were  not  addressed  by  the  person  who  spoke,  they  most 
naturally  sprang  to  their  feet  as  soon  as  they  could  use  their 
limbs,  and  ran  to  a  safe  distance,  where  they  stood  speechless, 
still  hearing  the  voice,  and  yet  not  hearing  it. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  if  Luke  actually  wrote  all  three 
of  these  accounts  himself,  it  is  difficult  to  say  why  he  gave  the 
details  thus  differently.  But  if,  as  the  narrative  a.sserts,  two 
of  them  were  given  by  Paul  in  two  different  speeches,  the 
difference  in  narration  is  at  once  accounted  for,  and  this 
furni.shes  a  very  good  reason  for  rejecting  the  hypothesis, 
baseless  in  itself,  that  Luke  wrote  the  speeches  and  put  them 
into  Paul's  mouth. 

II.    Contradictions  of  Paul  in  (Jalatianm. 

The  most  serious  of  the  alleged  contradictions  in  Acts, 
and  those  which  are  made  the  most  of  in  argument  by  the 
rationalist.s,  are  those  between  it  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians.  W'v  will  notice  them  in  the  order  of  their 
occurrence. 

L  Paul  says  that  after  his  conversion  he  did  nut  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  until  "  after  three  years;"  but  that  he  went  into 
Arabia,  and  returned  to  Damascus  before  going  up  to  Jeru- 
salem (Gal.  i.  lo-18).  Luke  omits  his  going  into  Arabia, 
and  says  that  "  he  was  certain  days  with  the  disciples  in 
Damascus,"  and  then,  when  "  many  days  were  fulfilled,"  he 
went  up  to  Jerusalem.  This  is  treated  as  a  contradiction,  the 
objectors  claiming  that  "many  days"  can  not  cover  a  j)eriod 
of  three  years.'  But  the  objection  is  captious:  for  surely 
when  a  writer  intentionally  uses  indefinite  terms  it  is  folly  to 
put  a  close  restriction  on  his  meaning.  As  well  say  that  when 
Joshua  remarks  to  the  Israelites,  "Ye  dwelt  in  the  wilderness 
a  long  season,"  while  Mose.s  says  they  were  there  forty  years, 
that  there  is  here  a  contradiction,  because  a  long  season  is  not 
'  Banr,  Pmil.  i.  107. 


the 


M;\V    TEbJA.MENT    liOOKS.  71 

SO  long  as  forty  years.  Or,  taking  the  opposite  expression,  as 
well  say  of  Job's  remark,  '*  Man  is  of  few  days,  and  full  of 
trouble,"  that  according  to  this,  men  in  Job's  time  lived  only 
ajev  days.  But  the  Okl  Testament  furnishes  another  exam- 
ple still  more  in  point,  in  the  ease  of  IShimei,  who,  when 
spared  by  Solomon  on  condition  that  he  should  not  depart 
from  Jerusalem,  "dwelt  in  Jerusalem  many  days,"  and  yet,  as 
the  context  shows,  he  went  out  of  the  city  ''  at  the  end  of 
three  years"  (I.  Kings  ii.  36-4(3). 

2.  It  is  claimed,  also,  that  in  describing  Paul's  first  visit  A^^l^^ 
to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion  Luke  contradicts  Paul   in""JJJit 
several  particulars,  and  manufactures  some    incidents    wliichconvcV 
did  not  occur.     (1)   It  must  be  false,  because  incredible,  that  ^'""" 
tlic    disciples    in    Jerusalem,  as    asserted    by    Luke,  had    not 
heard  of  Paul's  conversou.'      But  Luke  does  not  say  they  had 
not  heard   of  Paul's  conversion.     He  says,  "  They  were  all 
afraid  of  him,  not  believing  that  he  was  a  disciple"  (ix.  26). 
They   might   have   heird   of  his  conversion   forty   times,  and 
they  might  have  been  told  all  of  the  details  of  the  story,  with- 
out believing  it;   for  they  miglit  have  thought  that  the  story 
was  made  up  for  the   purpose  of  enabling  Paul  to  gain  their 
confidence,  and  thus  to   more  effectually  persecute  them.     So 
sudden   a  conversion   of  such  a   persecutor  would  be  next  to 
incredible  in  any  aj^o  of  the  church's  history.     (2)    It  is  held  ■^■"*'o"^c 
to  be  incredible  that  Barnabas,  as  Luke  affirms,  took  Paul  and  \;""  "f- 

'  Harna- 

brought  him  into  the  confidence  of  the  Apostles.^    But  surely''"* 
this  is  most  natural :   for  under  the  circumstances  some  one 
had    to    be    the    first    to  acquire   confidence    in  him,  and   to 
influence  the  others,  and  why  not  Barnabas  as  well  as  any  one 
else?     (3)  It  is  affirmed    in   Acts   that   Paul    was   with    the;^^'!' 

.  .  Paul s 

diseiples,  going  in  and  out,  and  preachinir  boldly  in  the  name  ?''«"'''' ; 

'  "         '^  '  '  f  •  lilt;  111  .Ii'- 

of  the  Lord;  that  he  spoke  and  disputed  against  the  Hoi- ''"■""'''^"^ 
lenists,  and  that  they  went  about  to  kill  him  (ix.  28,  29)  ; 
while  Paul  says  that  he  was  there  only  fifteen  days  (Gal.  i.  IS) ; 
and  it  is  claimed  that  fifteen  days  are  not  enougii  for  all  that 
Luke  relates.^  But  why  not?  If  it  was  his  custom  to  ])n'a(h 
and  dispute  only  on  Sundays  as  is  the  custom  of  main 
'  Haur,  /'.ml,  i.  107.     ' //,  ,  no,  m.     ^Jl,,-    ]lru:\n,  .l/.r,s//,^,  I'.M. 


72  CREDIBILITY    OF    THK 

rationalistic  critics,  there  would  be  plausibility  in  the 
objection ;  but  the  apostles,  like  their  Master,  disputed  daily 
in  the  temple,  and  even  a  single  week  of  such  disputations 
would  be  enough  to  stir  up  all  the  strife  which  Luke  mentions. 
It  would  be  enough  in  some  places  even  at  the  present  day. 
(4)  It  is  claimed  that  this  amount  of  preaching  in  Jerusalem 
As  to  the  J3  inconsistent  with  Paul's  statement,  "I  was  still  unknown 

personal  ' 

ance  of^'  by  facc  to  the  churches  in  Judea  which  were  in  Christ " 
Judea"  (Gal.  i.  22).'  But  while  such  preaching  and  disputation 
necessarily  made  him  known  to  the  brethren  in  .Jerusalem,  \\v 
might  still  say  that  he  was  unknown  by  face  to  the  churches 
in  Judea,  meaning,  as  he  certainly  does,  the  churches  in 
general  in  that  country.  (5)  It  is  again  charged  that  this 
want  of  acquaintance  with  the  churches  in  Judea  is  contra- 
dicted by  Luke  in  Acts  xxvi.  20,  where  he  represents  Paul  as 
saying  that  he  preached  "throughout  all  the  country  of  Judea" 
next  after  preaching  in  Jerusalem.-  But  while  this  preaching 
is  mentioned  next  after  that  in  Jerusalem,  it  is  nut  said  that 
it  came  next.  No  adverb  of  time,  or  any  other  indication  of 
sequence  is  given.  The  words  are :  "  I  was  not  disobedient 
to  the  heavenly  vision;  but  declared  both  to  th>em  of  Damas- 
cus first,  and  at  Jerusalem,  and  thnnighout  all  the  country  of 
Judea,  and  also  to  the  Gentiles,  that  they  should  repent  and 
turn  to  God."  As  there  is  no  note  of  lime  except  in  placing 
Damascus  first,  it  is  but  a  fair  construction  to  suppose  that 
Judea  is  mentioned  next  after  Jerusalem  because  of  its 
contiguity,  and  to  avoid  a  backward  movement  in  thought 
cau^eV,?  after  mentioning  the  Gentiles.  (6)  It  is  affirmed  that  the 
jeml"a^  cuuse  assigned  in  Acts  for  cutting  short  this  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
^*''"  the  determination  of  the  Hellenists  to  kill  him,  and  his  conse- 

quent removal  by  the  brethren  to  C«;sarea  and  thence  to 
Tarsus,  is  contradicted  in  the  twenty-second  (chapter,  when- 
I-*aul  is  r(;pr(!sented  as  saying  that  he  was  ordered  r.way  by  the 
Lord  himself  in  a  vision  (ix.  20,  30,  cf  xxii.  18-20).''  But 
the  two  causes  of  his  departure  are  not  inconsistent.  The 
latter  passage  shows  clearly  that  Paul  was  very  unwilling  to 
leave  Jerusalem,  by  showing  that  when  the  Lord  first  told  him 
'  Renan,  //».     'Baur,  /'>..  iii.     ^  Ih. 


NKW    TKSTAMKNT    HOOKS,  73 

to  go  he  atteinpte<l  to  remoiifctratc  against  the  order.  This  is 
enough  to  prove  that  the  brethren  could  not  have  sent  him 
away  had  he  not  also  been  commanded  by  the  Lord. 

3.  Another  alleged  contradiction  is  found  in  the  num- j^^^^^g'^® 
bering  of  Paul's  visits  to  Jerusalem.  His  second  visit  men- ^.igftM')*^ 
tioned  in  Acts  is  the  one  made  in  company  with  Barnabas,  /em"^" 
when  they  were  sent  with  alms  from  Anfioch  "to  the  brethren 
who  dwelt  in  Judea. "  This  mission  led  them  to  Jerusalem 
as  one  of  many  places  to  which  they  were  sent,  and  it  seems 
to  have  been  the  last  point  in  Judea  which  they  visited;  for  it 
is  said  that  they  "  returned  from  Jerusalem  when  they  had 
fulfilled  their  ministration''  (xi.  30;  xii.  25).  In  Paul's 
account  this  visit  is  omitted,  for  he  says  "Then  after  the 
space  of  fourteen  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  again  with 
Barnabas,"  and  the  incidents  which  are  mentioned  show  that 
this  visit  is  the  third  mentioned  in  Acts  (Gal.  ii.  1,  cf.  Acts 
xvi.  1—5).  But  while  this  is  the  second  visit  mentioned  by 
Paul,  i)e  does  not  say,  nor  does  his  language  imply,  that  it 
was  the  second  in  reality.  Furthermore,  in  Galatians  the  aim 
of  the  apostle  is  to  show  how  little  ojiportunity  he  had  en- 
joyed for  learning  the  gospel  from  the  older  apostles ;  and  the 
second  visit  mentioned  in  Acts  gave  him  no  such  opportunity, 
seeing  that  under  the  persecution  then  raging  the  elder  James 
had  been  beheaded,  and  Peter  had  fled  from  the  city  (xii.  1-3, 
16,  17).  The  third  visit  in  the  order  of  time,  then,  was  the 
second  in  the  order  of  Paul's  discussion;  that  is,  the  second 
in  which  he  saw  any  of  the  older  apostles;  and  he  had  no 
occasion  at  all  to  mention  the  second  one  of  Acts. ^  In  the 
face  of  these  obvious  considerations,  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise 
that  unfriendly  critics  insist  that  there  is  here  a  eontradiction. 
'  Baiir,  the  leader  in  opposing'  teaching  being  imiependont  of  the 
the  view  here  .state<l.  unwittingly  tuition  of  the  rest  of  the  apostles 
confirms  it  by  .saying:  "  Tiie  apos-  would  be  defective"  {Paul  i.  114). 
tie  could  not,  considering  hi.s  But  the  very  consideration  urged 
argument  in  the  passage,  have  here  justified  him  in  passing  over 
passed  over  the  journey  mentioned  tlie  visit  of  xi.,  .seeing  tliat  on  tliat 
in  Acts  xi.  Ilis  o])jo(t  reipiired  that  visit  he  ha<l  no  opportunity,  as  we 
no  communication  whicii  occurred  have  shown  above,  for  instruction 
between  Gal.  i.  IH  and  ii.  1  should  by  the  other  apostles, 
be  omitted,  else  the  pr-nif   of    his 


74  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

dMVof  ^'  -"^ll^ged  contradictions  in  the  accounts  of  Paul's  visit  to 
Pauls  Jerusalem  during  tlie  controversy  about  circumcision  are  next 
^'^^'''  in  order,  and  on  these  are  based  some  of  the  most  serious 
charges  which  rationalists  prefer  against  the  book  of  Acts. 
The  statements  in  Acts  on  the  subject  arc  briefly  these:  first, 
that  Barnabas  and  Paul  were  sent  to  Jerusalem  by  the 
meut^of"  disciples  in  Antioch  ;  second,  that  on  their  arrival  they  were 
^^^^''  received  in  a  public  meeting  by  the  church  with  the  apostles 
and  elders,  in  wliich  meeting  they  rehearsed  all  that  God  had 
done  with  them,  and  in  which  there  arose  certain  believing 
Pharisees,  who  said  that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise  the  Gen- 
tile converts,  and  charge  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses; 
third,  that  the  apostles  and  elders  came  together  to  consider 
this  matter,  that  after  much  questioning  Peter  made  a  speech 
in  opposition  to  the  Pharisees,  that  Barnabas  and  Paul  then 
rehearsed  what  signs  and  wonders  God  liad  wrought  among 
the  Gentiles  by  them,  that  James  followed  wdth  a  speech  in 
support  of  the  same  views,  and  that  finally  a  letter  to  the 
brethren  in  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia  was  drawn  up  with  the 
approval  of  the  wliole  church,  enforcing  the  views  set  forth 
in  the  speeches  (xv.  1-29).     The  statements  of  Paul  on  the 

the  state-  same  subjcct  are  these:  first,  that  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  on 
ments  of         _  "^  _  ^   '  ^ 

f'aiii  this  occasion  "by  revelation;"  second,  that  he  took  Titus 
with  him;  third,  in  his  own  words,"!  laid  before  them  the 
gospel  which  I  preached  among  the  (ilentik's,  but  privately 
before  them  who  were  of  repute;"  fourth,  that  Titus,  being  a 
Greek,  was  not  compelled  to  be  circumcised,  though  an  effort 
to  this  effect  was  made  by  certain  false  brethren ;  fiflh,  that 
the  other  Apostles  present,  James,  Peter  and  John,  im- 
parted nothing  to  him,  but  that  on  the  contrary  they  gave  to 
him  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  that  the  latter 
should  go  to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  former  to  the  circumcision 
(Gal.  ii.  1-10).  At  almost  every  point  these  two  accounts  are 
charged  with  contradiction,  li  is  held  that  Paul  speaks  the 
trutii,  but  that  every  one  of  Tvuke's  statements  is  false.  We 
shall  now  state  the  specifications  of  this  charge,  and  examine 
the  evidence  by  which  they  are  sujiported. 

(1)  Because  T^aul  says  that  he  went  u|)  by  revelation,  it  is 


NKW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  75 

charged  that   I^uko   is  false  iu  saying  that   ho  and   Barnabas 

were  sent  Iw  the  bretliren  in  Antiocl).'      But  why  should  the  "^^^Z^*"*® 

•'  •of  tno 

two  be  considered  inconsistent?  Paul  was  an  apostle,  pos-^*^*'- 
sessing  equal  inspiration  and  authority  with  any  other  apostle, 
and  on  this  he  insisted  again  and  again  when  it  was  called  in 
question ;  why  then  should  he  not  have  hesitated  to  go  to  the 
Apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem  for  a  decision  as  to  whether 
he  had  taught  the  truth,  and  have  required  a  revelation 
directing  him  to  go  before  he  would  comply  with  the  wishes 
of  the  brethren?  This  is  precisely  what  is  implied  in  the 
two  accounts  when  considered  together;  and  to  the  sugges- 
tion, that  if  Paul  had  been  sent  by  the  brethren  he  certainly 
would  have  said  so,  it  is  an  adequate  reply  that  after  stating 
the  main  cause  of  his  going  and  the  one  which  gave  divine 
sanction  to  the  j)roceeding,  it  was  altogether  needless  to  state 
the  inferior  cause  which  iu  itself  would  have  been  insufficient. 
Moreover,  his  aim  in  Galatians  is  to  show  his  independence  as  • 
an  aposlle,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  been  sent  by  the  brethren 
in  Antioch,  although  true,  and  not  inconsistent  with  his 
argument,  could  not  strengthen  it,  and  it  was  therefore  very 
properly  omitted. 

(2)  Paul's  silence  iu  reference  to  the  public  meetings  is/icmee^ 
held  as  proof  that  no  such  meetings  took  place:  for,  it  is'°^^' 
demanded,  how  could  he,  in  showing  the  results,  fail  to  men- 
lion  the  largo  meeting  "which  alone  could  decide  the  question 
at  issue"?  But  the  very  author  who  is  the  leader  in  making 
this  demand  himself  furnishes  the  answer,  when,  on  another 
page  of  his  work, ho  says:  "  The  Apostles  had  to  be  considered 
in  this  as  the  chief  personages,  whoso  attention  to  any  matter 
rendered  fuither  transactions  superfluous."-  It  was  in  reality 
(he  decision  of  the  thr(>o  A])ostles  whom  Paul  mentions  that 
settled  the  (piestion  on  its  nicrits;  and  this  alone  rendered  a 
reference  to  any  other  transactions  superfluous  with  Paul's 
readers:  it  was  therefore  witli  the  utmost  propriety  that  ho 
omitted  the  public  meeting,  and  his  doing  so  furnishes  not  the 
slightest  ground  for  doubting  that  it  took  place.  The  real 
purpose  of  the  second  meeting  was  to  ;;ive  the  apostles  an  op- 
'.S'///).  A',/.,  iii.  L'-JT.     ■•  I'.anr,  /•-("/,  i.  117,  US. 


76  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

portunity  to  silence  the  Pharisees  and  bring  the  whole  church 
to  unanimity. 
^on^uts^  (3)  It  is  asserted,  witii  a  boldness  and  confidence  propor- 
aposties  tionate  to  the  want  of  evidence,  that  Paul's  opponents  in  this 
charged,  "^''sit  were  not  "  Pharisees  who  believed,"  as  they  are  called  in 
Acts;  nor  "false  brethren  privily  brought  in,"  as  Paul  styles 
them;  but  the  older  Apostles  themselves/  It  is  admitted 
that  the  representation  in  Acts  is  the  reverse  of  this,  but  it  is 
held  that  on  this  j^oint  Acts  is  contradicted  by  Galatians. 
On  reading  the  passage  in  Galatians,  we  find  tliat  the  "  false 
brethren  privily  brought  in,  who  came  in  to  spy  out  our 
liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,"  are  spoken  of  as 
adversaries,  while  of  the  Apostles  it  is  said  :  "  Tht'y  who  were 
of  repute  imparted  nothing  to  me:  but  contrariwise,  when 
they  saw  that  I  had  been  intrusted  with  the  gospel  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision,  even  as  Peter  with  the  gospel  of  the  circum- 
cision, they  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of 
fellowship,  that  we  should  go  to  the  Gentiles  and  they  to 
circumcision."  There  is  in  this  not  the  sliglitest  indication  of 
a  conflict,  but  the  most  positive  declaration  of  agreement. 
The  agreement,  too,  is  the  result  not  of  a  protracted  discus- 
sion, or  of  any  debate  at  all;  but  of  a  simple  rehearsal  by 
Paul  of  the  Gospel  which  he  had  preached.  "  I  laid  before 
them  the  gospel  whicli  I  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  but 
privately  before  them  who  were  of  repute,  lest  Ity  any  means 
I  shonld  be  running,  or  had  run  in  vain."  This  last  remark 
is  accounted  for  by  the  consideration  that,  had  the  older 
Apostles  been  found  in  opposition  to  Paul,  tiieir  influence  in 
the  church  would  have  broken  his  down,  and  he  woidd  have 
run  in  vain.  The  whole  value  of  the  statement  which  he 
makes  on  the  subject  depends  on  the  fact  brought  out,  that 
mint  there  was  no  such  oj)positi()n.  In  support  of  the  charge 
ilV^om-  under  discussion,  the  only  argument  advanced  which  has  the 
Antioch  semblance  of  force  is  found  in  the  deman«l,  How  could  Peter 
ercd.  liave  actcd  as  he  did  so  soon  afterward  in  Antinch,  that  is,  in 
refusing  to  longer  eat  with  the  Gentiles,  so  that  Paul  rebuked 
him  before  all  (Gal.  ii.  11-14),  if  he   had   m)   jK'i-fectlv   agreed 

'  [?;mr,   /''/"/,  i.   ll'i,  121.  TJI. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  77 

with  Paul  in  Jorusalt-ni? '  It  may  as  well  bi'  asked,  Hdw 
could  this  same  IVtcr  have  denied  his  Lord,  as  he  is  said  to 
have  done,  so  soon  after  declaring,  "Even  if  I  must  die  with 
thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee"  (Matt.  xxvi.  35)?  The  very 
rebuke  which  Paul  administers  to  him  implies  that  he  had 
previously  agreed  with  Paul ;  for  he  says,  personating  Peter, 
"  If  I  build  up  again  those  things  whieh  I  have  destroyed,  I 
prove  myself  a  transgressor."  This  remark  depends  for  its 
relevancy  on  the  fact  that  Peter  was  now  acting  in  ojiposition 
to  his  previous  course,  and  it  sustains  the  representation  made 
in  Acts  and  Galatians,  that  he  had  agreed  with  Paul  in 
Jerusalem. 

(4)  The  decree  said  in  Acts  to  have   been   issued   on   thistoihMie"^ 
occasion   by  the  apostles  and  elders  is  ])ronou need  a  forgery. '^'^^'^ 
This  is  argued,  first,  on  the  ground  that  if  it  had   been   issued 
Paul  could  not  have  failed  to  refer  to  it  in  his  subsequent  con- 
troversy with   the   Judaizers  who   continued   to  insist  on  the 
circumcision  of  the  Gentile  converts.^     This  omission  on  Paul's  lence  ^' 
]>art  certainly  does  appear  singular;  but  his  course  of  argument  in  Cala- 
is precisely  what  we  should  expect  if  all  that  is  stated  in  Acts 
were  already  known  to  his  readers  in  Galatia  and   disregarded 
by  them.      If  this   decree    had   been    carried  to  them  by  Paul 
and  Silas,  as  its  application  to  Gentile   Christians  in   general 
renders  quite  probable,  and  if  the  teachers  who  had  supplanted 
Paul  in  their  confidence  (Gal.  i.  6,  7)  had  persuaded  them  to 
disregard  its  teaching,  as  they  certainly  had,  any  appeal   to  it 
by  Paul  would  have  been  useless.     His  only  recourse  was  to 
do  just  what  he  has  done  in  this  epistle,  supply  them  with  the 
additional  information  herein  contained.      This  not  only  takes 
away  the  force  of  the  ai-gument,  l)ut  it  sujijilies  a  good  i-easoii 
for  the  omission. 

The  same  proposition  is  argued  in  the  second  j)laee,  from  ;'"riiuh- 
Panl's  failure  to  (;itc  the  decree  wiien  argiiing  with  the  Cor-  """* 
inthians  against  eating  meats  offered  to  idcds  ;  and  this,  too, 
when  they  had  written  to  him  for  information  on  this  very 
subject.  It  is  argued  that  if  this  decree  had  been  issued  :it 
all  it  would  have  been  known  to  the  Corinthians,  and  eonse- 
'  Ham.  I'anl  i.  V:<).     -  //..,  l:!4;    K.-naii.  A/x'stlj.",  :VJ;  Snj,.  h;i..  in.  L'tlJ). 


~X  CKElMlilLirV    OF    THE 

quently  they  could  not  have  written  to  Paul  for  information 
ou  the  subject;  that  Paul  could  not,  as  he  does  in  his  reply  to 
them,  treat  it  as  a  matter  of  indiifereuce  in  itself. '  It  must 
be  admitted  that  if  the  decree  was  in  existence  Paul  had 
almost  certainly  made  the  Corinthians  acquainted  with  it,  in- 
asmuch as  they  were  especially  liable  to  do  what  it  forbids. 
From  this  it  follows  that  they  could  not  write  to  Paul  for  in- 
formation as  to  the  matters  expressly  declared  in  the  decree; 
and  if  this  is  what  they  did  write  for,  the  argument  would 
seem  to  be  good.  But  Paul's  answer  shows  that  this  was  not 
the  purport  of  their  question  His  argument  meets  an  objec- 
tion— the  objection  that  as  an  idol  is  known  to  be  nothing,  it 
could  not  defile  a  man's  conscience  to  eat  flesh  which  had  been 
offered  to  one.  Paul,  without  admitting  the  correctness  of  the 
conclusion,  takes  the  objector  on  his  own  ground,  and  shows 
that  inasmuch  as  this  knowledge  is  not  possessed  by  all  men, 
there  would  still  be  sin  in  the  act,  because  it  would  embolden 
some  whose  consciences  were  weak  to  cat  as  an  act  of  homage, 
and  thus  it  would  cause  them  to  perish  (I.  Cor.  viii.  1-13). 
This  shows  that  t)?e  question  •  raised  and  discussed  had  the 
nature  of  an  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  decree,  and  that 
the  answer  called  for  was  not  a  statement  of  what  was  taught 
in  the  decree,  but  a  reason  why  it  should  be  observed  even  by 
those  who  thought  they  could  violate  it  without  injurv  tc 
themselves.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  also,  that  while  Paul 
waived  the  question  whether  those  who  were  enlightened 
about  idols  could  eat  the  olR'rings  without  sin,  farther  on  in 
the  Epistle  he  forbade  it  absolutely  (x.  20,  21).  It  w:is  only 
the  eating  of  flesh  thus  offered  without  knowing  th:it  it  was  an 
idol  offering  which  he  allowed  as  innocent  (x.  25-29). 
u-ncels''  C'^)  ^^'c  have  now  sufficiently  accounted  for  the  fact  that 
vutecoii-  P^ul  fails  to  mention  the  ))ublic  meeting  descritx'd  in  Acts, 
but  it  is  still  insisted  that,  as  Luke  was  certainly  ac(|uainted 
with  the  Epistle  to  the  (ialatians,  he  must  have  had  some 
sinister  design  in  failing  to  mention  the  ])rivate  meeting  be- 
tween the  apo.stles.^     It   is  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  when 

'  Banr,  Paul,  i.  l.'?5;  Rcnan,  Apux-       '  Saji.  liiL,  iii.  'J'2(]. 
ih'H,  32,  .v.:  Siii>.  />/.,  iii.  l'TO-l'?:;. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  <9 

he  wrote  Acts  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  already  in 
circulation,  and  he  supplies  precisely  those  details  in  these 
proceedings  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle  had  omitted,  and 
avoids  repeating  tiiose  which  the  Epistle  contained.  This  is 
just  what  any  sensible  writer  would  be  apt  to  do,  and  the 
charge  of  a  sinister  design  is  preposterous.  The  same  an- 
swer applies  to  another  charge  in  this  connection  :  that  there 
is  something  wrong  in  omitting  the  rebuke  of  Petei-  by  Paul, 
which  occ-nrred  soon  after  this  conference.'  The  account  of 
it  was  already  in  the  hands  of  the  discipK'S,  and  it  had  been 
for  more  than  tive  years  when  the  book  of  Acts  was  written ; 
and  if  Rationalists  are  right  as  t«  the  date  of  Acts,  it  had  been 
tor  more  than  forty  years." 

One  more  incident  connected  witli  this  visit  to  Jerusalem 
deserves  some  notice  at  our  hands,  not  because  it  is  treated  as 
a  contradiction  between  Acts  and  (lalatians,  but  because  it 
furnishes  a  striking  instance  of  contradiction  between  the  as- 
sailants of  Acts.  Renan  says  that  Titus  consented  to  be 
circumcised,  but  only  through  the  representations  of  two  in- 
truding brethren  ;  ^  while  Baur  says  he  was  not  circunicisi'd  ; 
and  with  reference  to  an  interpretation  of  Paul's  words  to  the 
effect  that  Titus  was  not  compelled  to  be  circumcised,  but  sub- 
mitted to  it  for  the  sake  of  peace,  he  says,  "Nothing  can  be 
more  absurd."  ^ 

III.  We  next  consider  some  alleged  contradictions  between  parUes^m 
Acts  and  other  Epistles  of  Paul.  c.riath. 

1.  It  is  claimed  under  this  head  that. the  perfect  agreement 
between  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles  which  is  set  forth  in 
Acts  is  j)roved  to  be  unreal  by  the  sentiments  of  parties  in 
the  church  of  Corinth.  Paul  s])eaks  of  certain  parties  in 
that  church  whose  watchwords  were,  respectively,  "  I  am 
«)f  Paul,  I  am  of  Apollos,  1  am  of  Cephas,  I  am  of  Christ" 
(\.  Cor.  i.  12.)  It  is  claimed  that  the  parties  of  Cephas  and 
of  Christ  held  strong  Judaistic  views,  in  opposition  to  Paul's; 

^Siip.R^L;  Daur,  Paul,  i.  129.  School,  the  lattei'  was  not  written 

"(lahitians  was  written  not  later  till  about  the  year  100. 
than  the  beginning  of  the  year  f->H,       '  A}><)!*IIjk  ?>1. 
an<l    Acts    not    earlier    than    (ill;       Wat//,  i.  IJl.  r-'2. 
though  according  to  tlie  Tubingen 


80  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

that  its  leaders  had  coine  from  Jerusalem  with  letters  of 
commendation  from  some  of  the  older  Apostles,  and  that 
they  could  not  have  claimed  Cephas  as  tlieir  leader  without 
knowing  that  he  was  in  sympathy  with  their  views.  It  is 
also  argued  tiiat  if  this  claim  of  theirs  in  reference  to  Peter 
had  been  false,  Paul  could  have  refuted  it  by  saying  so, 
which  he  never  does.'  From  these  assumptions  and  infer- 
ences it  is  concludefl  that  there  could  not  have  been  that 
agreement  between  Paul  and  Peter  which  is  claimed  in 
Acts,  but  that  Peter  was  in  open  antagonism  to  Paul.  This 
charge,  and  the  whole  theory  on  which  it  is  based,  involves 
the  assumption  that  the  question  at  issue  between  these  parties 
was  the  one  about  circumcision  and  keeping  the  law,  and 
of  this  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence.  This  subject 
does  not  come  into  view  in  the  Epistle  at  all ;  and  therefore 
the  antagonism  assumed  has  no  appearance  of  an  existence. 
The  only  question  which  comes  into  view  in  the  Epistle 
with  respect  to  Paul  and  the  twelve  is  the  one  whether 
Paul  was  really  an  Aposde  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
were.  The  rebellious  parties  in  the  church  at  Corinth 
sought  to  break  down  the  influence  of  Paul,  not  by  array- 
ing the  teaching  of  the  twelve  against  that  of  Paul,  for 
there  is  no  intimation  of  any  such  antagonism  being  claimed 
by  them,  but  by  claiming  that  Paul  was  not  possesced  of 
apostolic  authority,  such  as  he  was  presuming  to  exercise. 
They  took  the  name  of  Peter  in  this  discussion,  if  Peter's  was 
the  real  name  they  took  (see  I.  Cor.  iv.  G),  because  he  was 
certainly  an  Apostle,  and  the  chief  of  the  original  twelve. 
As  to  the  false  teachers  who  headed  the  party,  to  assume 
that  they  brought  their  letters  of  commendation  from  Jeru- 
salem is  to  assume  what  can  not  be  known  to  be  true;  and 
if  it  were  true,  it  would  prove  nothing  as  to  the  relation 
between  Paul  and  those  by  whom  the  letters  were  written. 
Unfortunately,  it  was,  and  is,  no  uncommon  thing  for  men 
with  letters  of  commendation  from  good  men  to  make  use 
of  them   for  wicked  jiurposes. 

2.  The  most  extreme  and    inexcusable  of   all    these  alle- 
'  Baiir,  Paul,  i.,  L'Sl  ;  Suj,.  11,1.,  iii.  nOT-.^.O!) ;   II.  Cor.  iii.  1. 


NKW    TKSTAMENT    HOOKS.  81 

gations  against  the  author  of  Acts  is  the  assertion  that,  in  j\^fj\\'.j. 
contradiction  to  his  representation  of  agreement  between  the^^p?' 
older  Apostles  and  Paul,  Paul  is  the  very  person  denounced  ^aul. 
in  unnuasured  terms  by  John  in  the  Epistles  to  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia.  It  is  asked,  Who  but  Paul  and  his  fol- 
lowers can  be  referred  to  as  those  who  were  tried  by  the 
church  at  Ephesus  for  claiming  to  be  Apostles,  and  found 
liars;  by  those  who  held  the  doctrine  of  Baalam,  and  taught 
men  to  eat  things  offered  to  idols;  and  by  the  woman 
Jezebel,  Avho  taught  the  disciples  to  commit  -fornication, 
and  to  eat  things  offered  to  idols?'  The  obvious  answer 
is  that  they  were  men  and  women  whose  teaching  and  })rac- 
tice  were  condemned  by  the  teaching  of  Paul  in  most 
emphatic  terms  —  as  emphatic  as  those  employed  by  John. 
It  should  also  be  said  that,  according  to  the  admission  of 
the  very  men  who  make  this  charge,  John  liad  given  Paul 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship  many  years  previous  at  Jeru- 
salem; and  it  is  a  reflection  on  his  honor  to  assume  that 
he  here  denounces  him  whom  he  had  acknowledged  as  a 
fellow  Apostle.  Indeed,  this  charge  carries  a  false  thc(uy 
to  the  extreme  of  villification  and  abuse,  and  it  is  unworthy 
of  men  wlio  profess  to  be  seeking  the  truth  of  history. 

3.   While  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  represents;^"  ^"^^^ 

^  ^  I  fame  of 

the  church  in  Rome  as  one  of  world-wide  fame  (i.  8  ;  xvi.  16).  ''^"    v, 

^         '  /'  church  111 

it  is  claimed  that  Acts  represents  it  as  being  so  obscure  as '^°'"^' 
not  to  be  known  to  the  Jews  who  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  —  so 
obscure  that  the  Jews  there  could  speak  of  Christianity 
itself  "as  a  thing  about  which  they  had  still  to  learn;  with 
which  they  had  not  yet  come  in  contact ;  which  was  known 
to  them  only  by  hearsay."  ^  This  allegation  would  be 
scarcely  worthy  of  nf)tice  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  so 
eminent  a  commentator  as  Olshausen  understands  the  rej)- 
resentation  in  Acts  in  the  sanjc  way.'  It  is  shown  to  be 
a  false  representation  by  a  mere  glance  at  the  passage  in 
Acts  which  is  referred  to  (xxviii.  17-22).  In  response  to 
Paul's   statement   about    himself,   the    Jews   are    represented 

'  Sii,,.    Rd..   iii.   814;    /?/>'•.,    ii.    •_',        •  Haur,  /V>m/,  i.  :i2G. 
14.  JO.  '  fh.,  :V2-i-:V2i\  II. 


82  CREDIRILITV    OF    THE 

a.s  saying:  "  Wc  neither  received  letters  from  Judea  con- 
cerning thee,  nor  did  any  of  the  brethren  come  hither  and 
report  or  speak  any  harm  of  thee.  But  we  desire  to  hear 
of  thee  what  thou  thinkest :  for  as  concerning  this  sect,  it 
is  known  to  us  that  it  is  everywhere  spoken  against."  Now 
these  words,  instead  of  showing  that  the  Jews  were  ignorant 
of  Christianity,  so  ignorant  that  it  was  a  thing  about  which 
they  had  still  to  learn,  shows  the  very  opposite.  It  shows 
that  it  was  known  to  them,  and  known  as  a  sect  which  was 
everywhere  spoken  against.  It  was  Paul  of  whom  they  had 
not  heard,  and  their  remark  does  not  show  that  they  had 
heard  nothing  of  him,  but  only  that  they  had  not  heard  "any 
harm  "  of  him. 

We  have  now  discussed  all  of  the  principal  charges  of 
contradiction  brought  against  the  author  of  Acts,  and  the 
reader  must  judge  whether  any  of  them  can  be  sustained.  We 
shall  hereafter  institute  quite  a  different  comparison  between 
this  book  and  others,  by  which  it  will  appear  from  undesigned 
coincidences  that  it  is  surprisingly  correct  in  even  the 
minutest  details  of  its  narration. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


UNDESIGNED  COINCIDENCES   BETWEEN   THE  GOSPELS. 


Having  now  applied  to  the  Gospels  and  Acts  tin-  principles ^j"[g^8e 
of  Canon  V.  (page  4),  with  reference  to  the  alleged  contra- '^'"'p'®'"- 
dictions  between  theii-  narrations,  we  next  propose  to  apply 
the  same  Canon  with  reference  to  incidentnl  agreements  of  the 
former  with  one  another,  and  of  the  last  with  the  Gospels  and 
Paul's  Ej)istles.  As  we  have  stated  (page  30),  this  evidence, 
when  the  points  of  incidental  agreement  are  numerous  and 
striking,  is  the  strongest  possible  evidence  of  the  accuracy  of 
a  set  of  writers  dealing  with  a  common  series  of  events.  As 
in  the  case  of  alleged  contradictions,  we  shall  not  attempt  to 
exhaust  this  source  of  evidence,  but  we  shall  consider  only  the 
more  important  and  striking  of  the  coincidences,  and  we  shall 
take  them  up  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

1.  John  the  Baptist  is  represented  as  making  the  following ^^^'j.^'j^j!*'" 
speech  concerning  Jesus  :  "I  have  beheld  the  Spirit  descend- y'J^p°j*[''' 
ing  as  a  dove  out  of  heaven  ;  and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I 
knew  him  not;  l>ut  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  in  water,  he 
said  to  me.  Upon  whomsoever  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 
descending  and  abiding  on  him,  the  same  is  he  that  baptizeth 
in^^tlie  Holy  Si)irit.  And  T  have  seen,  and  have  borne  witne>s 
that  this  is  the  Son  of  (iod  "  (i.  32-34).  Now  it  is  very  clear, 
from  what  John  says  he  had  seen,  that  he  coidd  testify  that 
Jesus  was  he  who  was  to  baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  but  how 
could  he  from  this  testify  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God? 
There  is  nothing  In  the  previous  narrative  from  which  this 
inference  could  be  drawn.  Rut  this  inference,  or  ratlM>r  this 
positive  assertion,  is  nccounti'd   for  when  we  turn  to  the  other 


84  CKEDIHIUTV    OF    THE 

Gospels,  and  find  that  every  one  of  them  asserts  that  when 
the  Spirit  descended  as  a  dove  a  voice  was  heard  in  heaven, 
saying,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  plciised." 
The  latter  statement  accounts  for  and  explains  the  former,  and 
therefore  they  mutually  throw  credit  on  each  other. 
As  to  the         2.  The  accounts  ariven  by  Matthew  and  Luke  of  the  call  of 

call  of  the  o  J 

fisher-  tiie  foiji-  fislicrmen  appear  to  be  contradictory,  so  different  are  the 
details  which  they  give,  and  it  has  been  treated  as  a  real  con- 
tradiction by  skeptics/  Bnt  tiie  accounts  touch  each  other  at 
such  points  as  to  incidentally  explain  each  the  other.  Mat- 
thew says  that  when  Jesus  was  walking  by  the  lake  shore  he 
saw  Peter  and  Andrew  "casting  a  net  into  the  sea;"  and  that 
when  he  came  to  James  and  John,  they  were  in  the  boat, 
mending  their  nets"  (iv.  18,  21).  Now  botii  of  tiiese 
incidents  are  accounted  for  by  Luke's  statement,  that  they  had 
been  fishing  all  the  preceding  night  (verse  5).  A  whole 
night's  fisiiing  would  naturally  necessitate  mending  some  of 
the  nets  in  the  morning;  and  if  it  was  early  in  the  morning, 
it  would  be  very  natural  that  the  two  men  whose  nets  w(!re 
not  broken  should  not  yet  have  desisted  from  their  toil, 
especially  as  they  had  canght  nothing  through  the  night. 
Again,  Matthew  represents  the  four  as  following  Jesus  at  his 
word,  leaving  their  business  in  order  to  do  so,  when,  so  far  as 
his  narrative  informs  us,  they  had  neither  seen  nor  heard  of 
him  before  that  hour.  Had  we  Matthew's  Gosjiel  alone,  it 
wduld  be  impossible  to  account  for  this  action  on  their  part, 
without  the  conjecture,  which  rati(uialists  would  not  have 
allowed,  that  in  some  way  unexplained  they  hud  formed  a  previ- 
ous acquaintance  with  him.  But  all  is  explained  without  con- 
jecture, when  we  learn  from  Luke's  indepeudcnt  narrative 
tliat  when  Jesus  approached  the  lake,  Peter  and  Andrew  drew 
their  boat  ashore,  went  out  of  it  to  wash  their  net.<?,  allowed 
Jesus  to  sit  in  the  boat  while  he  taught  the  people,  and  then, 
thrusting  out  into  the  doej)  water  again  at  his  bidding,  took  a 
draught  of  fishes  which  appeared  to  them  to  be  niirae(dous 
(v.  1-8). 

3.   Mark    represents   Jesus  as  going   from    (he   synagogue 
'Str.'iiiss.  y,>r  IMi ,  li.  12'.t,  l:i0. 


NKW     rKSTAMENT    15(«)KS,  85 

meeting  into  the  house  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  tliere  heal- ,'^g|JjV,'||'^^j 
ing  the  former's  mother-in-hiw  of  a  fever.  This  occurred,  as^'^pe" 
we  judge  from  tiie  fact  that  the  synagogue  had  just  been  dis-""'"" 
missed,  not  long  after  noon.  Mark  tlien  represents  the  whole 
town  as  being  excited  by  the  cure,  aud  bringing  all  their  sick 
to  Jesus  to  be  healed,  but  not  till  evening  when  the  "  sun  had 
set"  (i.  29-33).  lie  gives  us  no  reason  for  this  delay;  but 
leaves  us  to  what  would  be  endless  and  unsatisfactory  conjec- 
ture and  doubt  on  the  point,  if  we  had  no  narrative  l)ut  his. 
But  on  reading  Luke's  account  of  the  incident,  we  learn  that 
it  occurred  on  the  sabbath  (iv.  31);  and  on  reading  the  Cioh- 
pel  of  John,  we  learn  in  an  entirely  different  connection  that 
tlie  Jews  held  it  to  be  unlawful  to  bear  a  burden  on  the  sab- 
bath (v.  10);  and  thus  is  explained  the  strange  delay  of  the 
people  iu  bringing  their  sick.  Now  it  is  impo.ssible  to  believe 
either  that  Luke  said  it  was  on  the  sabbath  to  confirm  what 
Mark  says  about  the  delay,  or  that  John  mentions  the  rebuke 
of  the  man  who  carried  liis  bed  on  the  sabbath  to  confirm 
what  either  Mark  or  Luke  says  about  the  people  of  Caper- 
naum; yet  tlie  confirmation  is  complete^  and  the  evidence  is 
the  stronger  from  the  search  which  wc;  have  had  to  find  it. 

4.  Matthew's  statement  that  John  the  Baptist  heard  in  hisjohug 
prison  of  the  works  of  Jesus,  and  sent  a  message  to  him  by  in^priT"!!. 
his  disciples,  assumes  that  his  friends  had  easy  access  to  him 

in  his  prison,  contrary  tu  what  we  would  naturally  suppose 
from  the  facts  connected  with  his  arrest  by  Herod,  and  his 
sul)sequent  cruel  execution.  This  circumstance  is  not  ac- 
counted for  until  we  read  in  Mark  that,  notwithstanding  the 
imprisonment,  "  Herod  feared  John,  knowing  that  he  was  a 
righteous  man  and  holy,  and  kept  him  safe.  And  when  he 
heard  liini  he  was  much  perplexed,  and  he  heard  hiiu  gladly  " 
(vi.  20).  Thus  the  writer  who  says  notching  about  .lohu's  mes- 
'jage  from  the  prison  furnishes  an  item,  in  a  totally  different 
connection  of  thought,  which  accounts  for  his  ability  to 
send  it, 

5.  Mattliew  savs  tliat  when  Herod  heard  ol'  Jesus  hc'^s'oHcr- 
=*said  to  his  servants.  This  is  John  the  Baptist"  (xiv.  1,  2).  |^o»  "'•''-■• 
It  is  verv  natural  that  he  should  have  nuide  the  remark  to  his 


86  CREDIBILIT4'    OF    THK 

servants,  that  is,  to  his  officers;  but  the  question  naturally 
arises,  how  did  Matthew,  or  any  of  the  disciples,  who  seem  to 
have  been  far  removed  from  connection  with  Herod's  house- 
hold, learn  that  he  did  so?  To  the  answer  Matthew  nowhere 
gives  us  the  slightest  clew;  but  in  a  purely  incidental  way 
we  obtain  a  natural  answer  from  Luke.  The  latter  writer 
mentions,  among  the  women  who  ministered  to  Jesus  out  of 
their  substance,  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward 
(viii.  'I,  3).  How  f^ortainly  would  Chuza  tell  his  wife  what 
Herod  said  about  him  whom  she  so  admired,  and  how  cer- 
tainly would  she  tell  it  to  Jesus  and  the  disciples!  Further- 
more, the  same  writer  tells  us  that  Manajn,  afterward  a  noted 
teacher  and  prophet  in  the  churcli  at  Antioch,  was  Herod's 
foster-brother;  and  thus,  without  having  Matthew's  account  in 
his  mind,  he  gives  his  readers  another  clew  to  the  source  of 
Matthew's  knowledge  of  the  private  conversation  of  Herod. 
Asiothc         0.  Mark    informs  us  that  on  a  certain  occasion,  when  the 

o.O-iii  luul  111 

th.'irat-    apostles  returned  to  Jesus  from  a  tour  of  preaching  and  heal- 

teniiit  to       f^  ,  ,         . 

make  Je-  j^g^  there  were  so  many  persons  about  them  coming  and  gomg 
'^'"i''-  that  they  had  no  leisure  so  much  as  to  eat  bread ;  and  that  on 
this  account  Jesus  ordered  them  into  a  boat  that  they  might 
cross  the  lake  and  rest  awhile  in  a  desert  place  (vi.  30-32). 
So  eager  and  pressing  a  crowd  is  not  mentioned  on  any  other 
occasion,  and  we  naturally  wonder  what  could  have  been  the 
cause  of  it ;  but  on  this  point  Mark  leaves  us  completely  in 
the  dark.  Here  again  we  might  have  employed  conjecture, 
but  we  could  never  have  reached  any  certainty  had  not  Mat- 
thew, who  says  not  a  word  about  the  pressure  of  the  crowd, 
informed  us  that  just  at  that  time  some  disciples  of  John  had 
arrived,  and  brought  to  Jesus  and  the  people  the  exciting  news 
th;it  John  had  been  beheaded  by  Herod  (xiv.  12-14).  Further- 
more, these  two  circum.stances  combined  help  to  explain  a 
strange  act  of  the  people  on  that  very  day,  which  is  mentioned 
only  by  John,  and  for  which  John  gives  no  adequate  cause. 
It  is  the  circnmstance  that  the  multitude,  after  being  fed  with 
the  loaves  and  fi.shea,  were  about  to  take  Jesus  by  force  :ind 
make  him  a  king  (vi.  15).  The  miracle  of  feeding  is  not  a 
8ufli('/M*nt  r-ansc  for  this,  yet  it  is  all  that  is  mentioned  by  John; 


As  to  the 
greeu 


NK\S      IKsrAMKNI"    UnOK.S.  87 

but  when  we  consider  what  is  said  by  Matthew  about  the  fresh 
and  exasperating  news  of  the  cruel  death  of  John,  who  iiad 
hitherto  been  the  leader  of  the  people,  and  the  excitement 
which  had  preceded  the  crossing  of  the  lake,  all  is  most  natur- 
ally explained.  And  how  perfectly  obvious  it  is  that  none  of 
these  coincidences  could  liave  been  the  work  of  design!  How 
certain  that  they  result  only  from  the  fact  that  each  of  the 
three  writers  tells  the  exact  truth  so  far  as  he  speaks  at  all ! 

7.  In  describing  the  ])receding  event,  the  feeding  of  the  ^ 
five  thousand,  Mark  says  that  Jesus  commanded  the  multitude  ^"^^ 
to  sit  down  "on   the  green   grass"  (vi.  39).      John  says  that 
there  was  much   grass  in  the  place,  but  lie  says  nothing  about 

its  being  green.  He  says,  however,  that  this  feeding  occurred 
when  the  feast  of  the  Passover  was  at  hand,  and  we  know  that 
this  feast  occurred  at  the  next  full  moon  after  the  vernal  equi- 
nox, the  very  time  in  Palestine  when  grass  is  abundant  and 
green.  A  few  weeks  before  this  it  is  not  abundant,  and  a  few 
weeks  later  it  is  dry.  This  combination  of  coincidences  con- 
nected with  the  account  of  feeding  the  five  thousand  not  only- 
shows  that  the  writers  are  very  accurate  in  their  accounts,  but 
that  they  were  aiming  to  tell  the  exact  truth  in  the  whole 

story.  _      ^  ^Xk 

8.  Luke  represents  Jesus  as  preaching  in  Nazareth  before  JJ^^^'^p^'^ 
he  began  his  labors  in  Capernaum  (iv.  16,  31-38);  yet  he  quotes 

him  as  saying  to  the  people  in  Nazareth,  "  Doubtless  ye  will 
say  unto  me  this  parable,  Physician,  heal  thyself;  whatsoever 
we  have  heard  done  at  Capernaum,  do  also  here  in  thine  own 
country."  With  Luke's  narrative  alone  before  us,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  account  for  this  language.  Not  only  so,  but  the 
course  of  his  narrative  implies  that  Jesus  had  not  been  in 
Capernaum  since  his  return  into  Galilee.  When  we  turn  to 
John,  however,  we  find  that  on  his  first  arrival  in  Galilee, 
while  he  was  yet  at  Cana  and  had  not  yet  gone  to  Nazaretli, 
he  healed  a  nobleman's  son  in  Capernaum,  the  cure  being 
effected  without  his  being  in  ( 'a|)t'rnaum  at  all.  Thi.s,  then, 
accounts  for  tlie  demand  which  the  j)oople  of  Nazareth  were 
disposed  to  make;  and  the  very  fact  that  he  had  done  this  in 
C'aj>ernniirii   while   in    Cnna.  whieh    was   twenty   inil(v<  distant, 


88  CREDIRILirV    OF    TFIE 

gave  more  force  to  the  demand  that  lie  should  do  something 
similar  in  Nazareth  where  he  was  present.  This  very  striking 
coincidence,  let  it  be  observed,  is  drawn  from  a  portion  of 
John's  Gospel  which  it  has  suited  the  purpose  of  rationalists 

j^.sjo the  to  particularly  discredit. 

place  of  9    John  gives  no  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus :  neither 

does  he  tell  us  the  place  of  his  birth  ;  but  he  represents  people 
in  Jerusalem  as  couteudiug  that  he  could  not  be  the  Christ, 
because,  instead  of  coming  from  Bethlehem  as  the  Christ  should, 
he  had  come  from  Galilee.  Even  the  chief  priests  themselves 
thus  argued  (vii.  41,  42,  52).  Had  we  John's  Gospel  alone, 
we  would  not  be  able  to  determine  whether  the  objection  was 
well  taken  or  not.  He  evidently  takes  it  for  granted  that  his 
readers  would  know  that  it  was  not  well  taken,  but  he  does 
not  himself  furnish  us  the  means  of  so  knowing.  It  is  only 
when  w^e  turn  to  Matthew  and  Luke  that  we  find  the  infor- 
mation that  he  was  actually  born  in  Bethlehem.  Thus  the 
information  which  we  find  in  two  of  the  Gospels  is  assumed  in 
the  third  as  if  it  were  already  in  our  possession,  and  the  tacit 

fearof  Je-  assumptiou  proves  to  be  correct. 

riisaiein.  -j^Q^  ]\jm.i-  gives  the  following  very  singular  account  of  the 

feelings  of  the  disciples  when  Jesus  started  on  his  last  direct 
journey  to  Jerusalem:  "And  they  were  in  the  way  going  up 
to  Jerusalem;  and  Jesus  was  going  before  them;  and  they 
were  amazed;  and  they  that  followed  him  were  afraid."  He 
then  goes  on  to  state  that  Jesus,  as  if  he  were  desirous  of  in- 
creasing this  fear  and  amazement,  took  the  twelve  aside  and 
told  them  that  he  would  be  betrayed  in  Jerusalem  and  killed 
(x.  .'VJ-34).  There  is  nothing  in  his  preceding  narrative  to 
account  for  the  beginning  of  this  fear  and  amazement;  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  preceding  parts  of  Matthew  or  Luke. 
Had  we  none  but  these  three  gospels,  it  would  be  impossible, 
except  by  conjecture,  which  ration:ilisis  would  seriously  object 
to,  to  assign  a  cause  for  these  feelings.  Sliould  that  conjecture 
be  that  Jesus  had  been  in  Jerusalem  l)?fore  this,  and  had  met 
with  such  treatment  that  his  disciples  were  amazed  that  he 
should  return  thither,  we  would  \n-  charged  with  imagining 
facts  to  explain  an  iiu-n-dible  stat'-nieiil.      Uut  this  is  the  exact 


NEW    TKSTAMEM     BOOKS.  <Sy 

state  of  the  case  as  we  learn  from  .John's  Gospel,  which  in- 
forms us  of  five  previous  visits  to  Jerusalem,  at  the  close  oi 
the  last  four  of  which  the  Jews  iiad  sought  to  kill  Jesus  (John 
ii.  13;  V.  1,  18;  vii.  10;  viii.  59;  x.  22,23,31,39;  xi.  7-9,53).  - 
We  find,  too,  that  when  about  to  go  on  the  last  of  these  five 
visits,  the  disciples  even  that  early  expressed  their  astonish- 
ment, saying,  "  Rabbi,  the  Jews  were  but  now  seeking  to  stone 
thee;  and  goest  thou  thither  again?"  And  when  he  would 
go,  one  of  tlu'ui  said,  "  Let  us  also  go,  that  we  may  die  with 
him  "  (John  xi.  8,  16).  When,  after  all  this,  he  starts  thither 
again,  there  is  no  longer  any  wonder  that,  as  Mark  says,  they 
were  amazed  and  followed  him  with  fear.  Thus  we  see  that 
not  only  do  John's  statements  account  for  and  explain  that  of 
Mark,  but  they  are  really  necessary  to  this  end;  they  make 
Mark's  statement  most  credii)le,  and  his  remark  reflects  credit 
back  on  them.  Let  it  be  noted,  too,  that  these  very  visits  to 
Jerusalem  are  a  part  of  the  Gospel  of  John  which  have  been 
blindly  treated  by  rationalists  as  inconsistent  with  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  Synoptists.'  place ''^ 
11.  The  minute  circumstance  as  to  where  the  ass  wasass*\vas  ^ 
procured  on  which  Jesus  rode  into  Jerusalem,  will  furnish 
our  next  example.  Matthew  says  that  it  was  procured  at 
Bethphage;  and  he  says  nothing  of  any  other  village  (xxi.  1, 
2).  Mark  and  Luke  both  say  that  Jesus  and  his  company 
had  arrived  near  Bethphage  and  Bethany,  and  that  in  ordering 
two  disciples  to  go  for  the  ass  Jesus  said,  "Go  your  way  into 
the  village  over  against  you" — lea.ving  it  uncertain  which  of 
the  villages  he  nuant  (Mark  xi.  1 ;  Luke  xix.  29,  30).  John 
simply  says  that  they  "  found  an  ass,"  without  saying  where, 
though  he  says  that  they  sj)ent  the  previous  night  in  Bethany, 
and  the  village  over  against  them  must  have  been  Bethphage. 
Here,  then,  are  three  accounts  differing  from  Matthew's  in 
omitting  the  particular  which  he  mentions,  while  Matthew's 
differs  from  all  of  them  by  omitting  nearly  all  of  the  details 
which  they  mention  ;  yet  even  in  a  matter  so  minute  as  this 
there  is  perfect  agreement,  and  the  ambiguity  of  Mark  and 
Luke    is    cleared    up   by    iIk-    briefer   statement    of  Matthew. 


90  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

How  could  this  be  if  all  were  not  speaking  the  exact  truth  so 
far  as  they  spoke  at  all  ? 
As  to  the         j2.  While  John    mentions    five   visits  of  Jesus  to  Jeru- 

visits  of 

Jerusa*-"  s^lem  or  its  vicinity,  between  his  baptism  and  his  last  visit, 
^®™-  the  other  writers  mention  not  one.  This  is  held  by  some 
unbelievers  as  proof  that  the  latter  knew  of  no  such  visits; 
by  some  as  proof  that  the  author  of  John  misreprsented  the 
facts;  and  by  all  as  a  contradiction.  But  we  find  in  both 
Matthew  and  Luke  incidental  proof  that  John  is  right,  and 
that  the  others  were  not  ignorant  of  these  visits.  They  both 
quote  the  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  in  which  Jesus  says, 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together  as  a 
hen  gathers  her  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not" 
(Matt,  xxiii.  30-39;  Luke  xiii.  34).  He  could  not  have  made 
this  attempt  often  without  being  often  in  the  city ;  and  the 
quotation  of  his  language  implies  the  knowledge  that  these 
visits  had  taken  place.  This  agreement,  appearing  in  the 
midst  of  apparent  contradiction,  and  being  discoverable  only 
after  a  careful  search,  aifords  the  stronger  evidence  from  these 
two  considerations, 
in'^he'^^  13.  Our  next  example  is  a  coincidence  of  a  topographical 

flffn-ee^*^  kind.  In  Mark's  account  of  the  withering  of  the  barren  fig 
tree,  the  disciples  are  represented  as  not  seeing  the  tree  until 
the  next  morning  after  the  curse  was  pronounced  on  it, 
although  they  went  out  to  Bethany  the  next  afternoon,  and  we 
should  suppose  that  they  passed  by  it  (xi.  14,  19,  20).  This 
appears  quite  strange,  if  not  unaccountable,  until  we  inspect 
the  route  of  travel  between  Jerusalem  and  Bethany,  and  find 
that  there  are  two  diiferent  paths,  by  either  of  which  a  person 
may  pass  up  the  western  side  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  from 
the  one  place  to  the  other.  One  of  the  paths  is  very  steep, 
while  the  other  h:\s  a  gradual  slope.  The  steej)  path  is  the 
shorter  of  the  two,  and  the  one  which  a  person  would  natur- 
ally take  when  coming  down  the  mountain  side  toward  the 
city,  while  the  other  would  naturally  l)e  preferred  hy  one 
going  the  other  way.  Now  Jesus  was  coming  into  the  eity 
when  he  cursed  the  tree,  and  this  accounts  for  the  failure  of 
the  disciples  to  see    it    as  they    went  o«it,  and  also   for  their 


fig  tree. 


\\:\\     TESTAMENT    HfX)KS.  91 

seeing  it  when  they  came  in  the  next  morning.     A  coincidence 

so  tninute  as  this,  and  so  artless,  can  be  the  work  of  none  but 

an  accurate  writer. 

14.  Matthew  and  Mark  both  state  that  when  the  Pharisees  ^!„^  ^«- 

rodiana. 

sent  men  to  Jesus  to  temi)t  him  with  the  question  about  j)aving 
tribute  to  Ciesar,  llioy  sent  to  him,  with  the  others,  Herodians. 
Tlie  particular  bearing  of  this  circumstance  is  not  apparent 
until  Luke,  who  says  nothing  about  the  Herodians  being  sent, 
brings  out  in  a  totally  different  connection  the  fart  that 
Herod  was  at  that  time  in  the  city.  This  last  circumstance 
accounts  for  the  former,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  it 
was  mentioned  for  this  purpose. 

lo.  John    says    that   Jesus   and    his   disciples   arrived   at  as  t..  the 

T»i  I'l  ••  1  •/■/•!  1/.  interval 

Bethany  on    his    last  visit  to  the  city    'six  days  before  the>j<?t"eeii 

■'  .  .  'ho  imb- 

passover. "  Neither  of  the  other  Evangelists  says  how  louo;  it  n^-f-i'try 
was,  but  Mark,  without  apparently  aiming  to  count  the  time,  Pa^>"ver. 
incidentally  mentions  the  days  as  they  pass,  and  the  count 
which  we  are  able  to  make  from  his  statements  agrees  with 
the  statement  of  John.  On  the  next  day  after  the  arrival  :it 
Bethany  the  public  entry  took  place  (John  xii.  1,  12),  and  of 
course  this  was  five  days  from  the  passover.  Now,  following 
Mark,  we  find  that,  counting  the  day  of  the  public  entry  as 
one,  at  the  close  of  which  they  went  out  to  Bethany,  the  next 
day  on  which  the  fig  tree  was  cursed  would  be  two  (xi.  11, 
12) ;  the  day  following,  on  which  they  found  the  tree  withered, 
is  three  (xi.  20) ;  and  when  at  the  close  of  that  day  it  is  said, 
'•Now  after  the  two  days  was  the  feast  of  the  passover" 
(xiv.  1),  we  have  the  five  days,  and  the  count  is  even  witii 
that  of  John.  This  is  unmistakably  a  case  of  agreement 
which  could  have  resulted  from  nothing  but  strict  accuracy  of 
statement  on  the  part  of  both  writers. 

16.   The   fact    that  when  Jesus  was  about    to  be  arrested  as  to r«t- 

tinc  oflf 

one  of  his  disciples   whom  John  alone  dcsiirnates  as  Peter,  cut 'I'*'/'?'' "' 

*         '  ...  Malihiis. 

off  the  ear  of  the  servant  of  the  high  priest,  is  attested  by  all 
four  of  our  Evangelists.  They  all  as.sert,  too,  that  when  Peter 
came  into  the  house  of  the  high  priest  he  was  accused  of 
being  one  of  the  discij)les  of  Jesus;  but  .strange  to  say,  the 
servants  and  soldiers  who  make  this  accusation   have   notiiing 


92  CREDIBILITY    OF    TflE 

to  say  about  the  very  serious  offense  of  cutting  off  a  man's 
ear  in  resistance  to  arrest.  Stranger  still,  as  we  learn  from 
John,  who  knew  the  servant  and  calls  him  Malchus,  one  of 
the  persons  who  accused  Peter  was  a  kinsman  of  Malchus, 
and  yet  even  he  says  nothing  of  cutting  off  the  ear.  This 
silence  has  l)eeu  treated  as  proof  that  the  p;ir  was  not  out  off, 
and  that  all  the  Evaugelists  are  here  at  fault;  but  the  true 
explanation  is  found  in  a  statement  by  Luke,  evidently  not 
made  for  the  purpose  of  explanation,  that  when  the  ear  was 
cutoff  Jesus  healed  it  (Luke  xxii.  51).  Not  even  this  would 
have  saved  Peter  from  censure,  had  it  been  possible  to  speak 
of  the  affair  without  giving  evidence  in  favor  of  Jesus,  whom 
Peter's  accusers  were  seeking  to  condemn  as  an  impostor. 
The  incidental  way  in  which  this  explanation  is  furnished 
goes  far  to  establish  also  the  reality  of  the  miracle. 
As  to  the         17    Matthew  states  that  in  mocking  Jesus  the  servants  of 

mocking  '^ 

of  Jesus.  tij(3  }^jg},  priest  "smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands, 
saying.  Prophesy  to  us,  thou  Christ;  who  is  he  that  smote 
thee?"  (xxvi.  68).  Now  this,  were  it  not  for  a  circumstance 
which  we  are  about  to  notice,  would  undoubtedly  be  declared 
by  unfriendly  critics  a  piece  of  absurdity;  for  they  would  say, 
Why  ask  him  to  prophesy  who  smote  him,  when  his  assailant 
stood  before  his  face  ?  Believers  would,  of  course,  contend 
that  something  whicii  Matthew  omits  would  doubtless  make 
tlie  matter  plain  if  we  only  knew  a  little  more  of  the  circum- 
stances; but  this  would  be  ridiculed,  as  all  other  such  suppo- 
sitions arc.  But  when  we  turn  to  Luke  we  find  the  very 
circumstance  which  Matthew  omits,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  supj)Iied  shows  clearly  enough  that  it  was  not  designed  to 
explain  Matthew's  account.  He  says  that  they  blindfolded 
Jesus  (xxii.  14).  If  Matthew  had  been  making  up  his  story 
he  would  probably  have  been  on  his  gunrd  against  such  omis- 
sions; but  as  he  was  conscious  of  writing  only  the  truth,  he 
left  his  statement  to  take  care  of  itself. 

Astothe         18.   All  four  of  the  Evangelists,  in  the  account  of  Peter's 

first  ac-  "  ' 

Peter**'  denial  of  the  Ivord,  state  that  it  was  a  maid  connected  with  the 
high  priest's  household  that  first  chargecl  him  with  being  one 
of  the  disciples.      If  we  had  only  the  first  three,  this  would  be 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  93 

diificult  to  aocouiit  for,  seeing  that  the  men  who  had  arretted 
him  wouhl  bt-  naturally  much  more  likely  to  know  Peter  than 
the  maid  whose  duties  were  confined  within  the  house;  and 
especially  would  this  be  so  from  the  fact  that  Peter  had  used 
a  sword  in  the  garden.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  preceding,  some 
hypothesis  as  to  the  omission  of  details  would  be  necessary  to 
preserve  tlie  credibility  of  the  writers.  But  when  we  turn  to 
John  all  is  explained  by  the  supply  of  the  omitted  circum- 
stance. He  tells  us  that  Peter  was  at  first  standing  at  th<'  door 
outside,  until  John  asked  the  maid  who  kept  the  door  to  let 
him  in.  As  John  was  known  to  be  one  of  the  disciples,  his 
request  that  Peter  might  be  admitted  within  the  court  natur- 
ally excited  (he  maid's  suspicion,  and  led  her  to  be  first  in 
making  the  accusation. 

19.  The  manner  in  which  Marv  Magdalene  is  spoken  of  in  \^''^"?'^<' 
the  Gospels  affords  another  remarkable  coincidence  of  the  "j'^-'*'?'"-^ 
kind  which  we  are  considering.  Matthew  introduces  her  first ''^°^- 
at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  as  one  among  "  many  women  be- 
holding from  afar,  who  had  followed  Jesus  from  Galilee, 
ministering  to  him  "  (xxvii.  o5,  50).  This  shows  that  for  some 
reason  she  had  thus  followed  him  and  ministered  to  him,  but 
it  leaves  us  in  the  dark  as  to  the  particular  motive  which  had 
actuated  her.  John  introduces  her  also  in  the  same  group  of 
women,  without  saying  how  she  happened  to  be  at  the  cross, 
but  he  indicates  her  great  devotion  to  him  by  her  visit  to  the 
tomb  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  her  extreme 
agitation  when  she  found  that  the  tomb  was  empty ;  and  her 
weeping  when  she  despaired  of  finding  the  body  of  Jesus 
(xix.  2o ;  XX.  1,  11).  The  reader  would  be  utterly  at  a  loss 
to  conjecture  the  special  cause  of  this  devotion,  and  he  might 
conjecture  in  vain  but  for  a  remark  which  is  n)ade  incident- 
ally by  both  Mark  and  Luke,  that  out  of  Mary  Jesus  had  cast 
seven  demons  (Mark  xvi.  9  ;  Luke  viii.  2).  While  this  ex- 
plains perfectly  her  devotion,  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  can  be 
.euspected  of  making  the  remark  for  this  purpose,  and  it  is 
therefore  an  undesigned  coincidence. 

Thus    fiir   we    have    considered     coincidences    between    th< 
8"vcral    (losj)els;    and  these,  taken   in   connection    witii   otln-r 


94  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

evidences  which  have  preceded  them,  appear  .siitticient  (o  es- 
tablish their  autheaticity  as  above  that  of  any  otlicr  writings 
to  which  the  same  tests  can  be  applied.  We  now  turn  to  Acts 
of  Apostles,  and  we  shall  try  it  in  the  same  way. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCES   BETWEEN    ACTS   AND 
PAUL'S   EPISTLES. 

"We  have  seen  that  in  assailing  this  book  rationalists  rely  Acts  and 
chiefly  on  its  alleged  inconsistency  with  certain  statements  in  Epistles. 
Paul's  acknowledged  Epistles,  and  especially  with  some  in 
Galatians.  We  now  propose  to  point  out  undesigned  co- 
incidences between  these  Epistles  and  Acts,  and  we  shall  see 
th:it  the  Epistles  acknowledged  by  rationalists  to  be  genuine 
confirm  Acts  in  so  many  points  as  to  make  up  a  supplemental 
account  of  Paul's  career. 

1.  Paul  is  first   introduced  in  Acts  as  a  persecutor  of  the  As  to 

Paul's 

church,  giving  consent  to  the  death  of  Stephen,  and  afterward  <ourse  of 

1       •  1  I  1     1  •         •  1  perseeu- 

laying  waste  the  church  by  entering  into  every  house  and  seiz-t'on. 
ing  and  dragging  to  prison  both  men  and  women.  In  these 
proceedings,  though  called  a  "young  man,"  he  is  represented 
as  a  leader  (vii.  58;  viii.  1-3).  With  this  corresponds  pre- 
cisely his  own  statement  in  Galatians:  "  Ye  have  heard  of  my 
manner  of  life  in  time  past  in  the  Jews'  religion,  how  that, 
beyond  measure,  1  persecuted  the  church  of  God  and  made 
havoc  of  it  ;  and  I  advanced  in  the  Jews'  religion  beyond 
many  of  mine  own  age  among  my  countrymen,  being  more 
exceedingly  zealous  for  the  traditions  of  ray  fathers  "  (i.  13,  14). 

2.  The    next    incident    given   in    Acts   is    his    lournev   to  ^"to 

Tx  .  ^,  .  J  .  Pauls 

Damascus  in  pursuance  of  his  persecuting  policy,  and  his  inter- '""^•'i- 
vicw  on  the  way  with  the  Lord  Jesus  (ix,  1-9).  In  a  later 
pas.^age  he  is  reprcsmted  as  receiving  from  the  Lord  on  this 
occasion  a  commission  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles  and  to  the 
people  of  Israel  (xxvi.  15-18).  In  the  Epistle  this  interview 
is  not   described,  but,  like  his  career  in   the  "Jews'  religion," 

(OS) 


96  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

just  previously  mentioned,  it  is  alluded  to  as  licing  already 
known  to  the  Galatians.  He  says :  "  But  when  it  was  the  good 
pleasure  of  God,  who  separated  me  even  from  my  mother's 
womb,  and  called  me  through  his  grace, to  reveal  his  Son  in 
me,  that  I  might  preach  him  among  the  Gentiles;  immediate- 
ly I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood"  (i.  15,  Ki).  Now, 
whatever  one  may  think  of  the  miraculous  incidents  related  at 
this  point  in  Acts,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  remark 
just  quoted  from  Paul  he  refers  to  the  incident  of  his  conver- 
sion to  the  faith  of  Christ.  This,  then,  confirms  the  statement 
tliat  his  conversion  occurred  on  this  journey,  and  thus  far  it 
confirms  the  account  in  Acts.  Furthermore,  he  speaks  of  this 
incident  as  a  revelation:  "When  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of 
God  to  reccal  his  Son."  But  a  )evelation  is  a  miracle;  and  to 
this  extent  he  confirms  the  representation  that  a  miracle  was 
MTOught  on  tlie  occasion.  He  uses  the  words,  "to  reveal  his 
Son  in  mi';"  but  he  means  by  this  not,  as  rationalists  have 
asserted,  to  make  an  inward  revelation,  but  to  reveal  his  Son 
to  the  world  as  still  living  in  heavenly  glory,  by  using  Paul's 
person  as  the  instrument.  In  what  way  his  person  was  made 
the  instrument  of  this  revelation  w^e  could  not  know  from  the 
Epistle,  the  process  being  already  known  to  his  readers,  and 
therefore  omitted  from  his  statement;  but  the  history  comes 
to  our  aid  as  if  written  for  the  very  jMirpose  of  giving  us  the 
desired  information,  though  certainly  having  no  such  j)urpose 
in  view.  Tt  shows  that  Christ  was  revealed  in  him  by  the  fact 
that  he  was  blinded  by  the  sight,  and  remained  so  until  the 
Jews  in  Damascus  knew  the  fact,  and  until,  on  account  of  the 
new  convictions  which  the  incident  had  implanted  in  him,  he 
was  baptized.  Thus  by  an  allusion  which,  on  account  of  its 
brevity,  we  could  not  have  fully  understood  without  the  nar- 
rative in  Acts,  the  latter  narrative  is  conlirmed  and  the  obscure 
allusions  of  the  Epistle  arc  made  intelligible.  It  is  scarcely 
possible  that  two  independent  documents  should  more  posi- 
tively confirm  each  other. 
As  to  ^,  The  next  item  in   Acts  is  Paul's   successful   preaching 

prcnch-     jfj    Damascus,  and    the   (expressions    of    ama/cnient    by   those 

mg  in  Da  '  •  ' .       ,  . 

masciis.     yf]^fy  heard  him  at  the  chan^ic   which   h;t(l   taken    place   in   him 


NEW    TESTA NfKNT    BOOKS.  97 

(ix.  20-22).  Xothiug  is  said  expressly  in  Galatians  of  this 
preaching,  but  it  is  implied  in  Piuil's  words,  "Immediately  1 
conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood  "  (i.  15,  16).  This  clause 
is  evidently  elliptical,  the  word  "immediately"  qualifying 
S')me  word  understood.  This  word  must  be  supplied  from 
tlie  preceding  clause,  "  that  I  might  ))reach  him  among  the 
Gentiles."  The  meaning  is,  I  immediately  preached  him, 
and  did  not  confer  with  flesh  and  blood  before  I  did  so. 
This,  then,  asserts  an  immediate  beginning  of  his  preaching, 
and  of  couse  a  beginning  in  Damascus.  The  same  ellipsis  is 
to  be  supplied  in  the  two  clauses  whicli  follow  about  going  in- 
to Arabia,  and  returning  to  Damascus,  as  if  he  had  said, "  I  w(  nt 
away  into  Arabia  to  preach  him,  and  again  I  ivturned  unto 
Damascus  to  preach  him."  Thus  while  Acts  speaks  in  gen- 
eral terms  of  his  preaching  in  Damascus,  Paul,  by  his  allu- 
sions, brief  as  they  are,  shows  that  he  preached  there  at  two 
separate  intervals,  separated  by  a  preaching  tour  in  Arabia.' 

4.    The  author  of  Acts   next  describes  Paul's  departure  ^^^Jo^ 
from   Damascus.     The  items  of  the  description   are,   first,  ay;)PJ^^^°™ 
counsel  of  the  Jews  to   kill   him;  second,  their  watching  the^"*^- 
gates  day  and  night  "that   they   might    kill  him;"  third,  his 

'The  conjecture  tliat  Paul's  ex-  Klijali  went  thitlier  he  was  rebuked 
cursion  into  Arabia  was  not  for  the  by  the  Lord,  who  demanded,  "  Eli- 
purpose  of  ])reaching  to  tlie  Jews  in  jah,  what  doest  thou  here?"  and 
its  town  and  villages,  but  for  the  tliat  he  was  ordered  back  to  his 
purpose  of  meditating  on  his  new  work.  In  the  absence  of  all  evi- 
relations  to  Christ,  and  preparing  dence  for  this  conjecture,  we  should 
himself  mentally  for  the  work  now  be  governed  in  juilging  of  the  pur- 
before  him,  although  it  is  ado|)ted  pose  of  the  excursion  by  what  we 
by  such  men  as  Alford,  Lightfoot,  know  of  Paul's  habits  during  the 
and  Farrar,  appears  to  me  so  ut-  ri-mainder  of  his  life;  and  by  this 
terly  ut  variance  with  the  restless  standard  we  should  judge  that  he 
activity  and  burning  zeal  of  the  was  one  of  the  last  men  on  earth 
apostle  as  to  be  altog»>ther  incredi-  to  waste  any  precious  moments, not 
ble.  The  addition  to  tliis  conjee-  to  si)eak  of  a  year  or  two,  in  idle 
ture,  that  he  went  as  far  as  Mount  meditation  in  the  desert,  while  the 
Sinai,  more  than  four  hundred  cause  which  he  iiad  espoused  was 
miles  from  Damascus,  where  Elijah  now  struggling,  for  an  existence, 
had  retire<l  before  him,  instead  of  (Alford,  Com.  (/«/.,  i.  18;  Lightfoot, 
continuing  the  original  hypothesis,  Coin,  on  Galatian^s,  note,  p  87;  Far- 
seems  rather  to  weaken  it;  for  rar,  //t/V  o/" /*'/"/,  chap.  xi.  I 
Paul    knew    verv    well   that   when 


98  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

being  let  down  by  the  disciples  "through  the  wall"  and 
"  in  a  basket,"  by  night  (ix.  23-25).  In  Galatians  nothing 
is  said  of  this;  Paul  says  only  that  after  three  years  lie  went 
up  to  Jerusalem.  But  in  II.  Corinthians,  another  admitted 
Epistle  of  Paul,  we  have  this  statement :  ''  In  Damascus  the 
governor  under  Aretas  the  king  guarded  the  city  of  Damas- 
cus, in  order  to  take  me:  and  through  a  window  was  I  let 
down  in  a  basket  by  the  wall,  and  escaped  his  hands  "  (xi.  32, 
33).  This  account  is  so  different  from  the  one  in  Acts  as  to 
make  it  quite  certain  that  neither  could  have  l)een  taken  from 
the  other,  and  that  neither  could  have  been  written  to  explain 
the  other.  Yet  Paul's  account  does  really  explain  some 
points  in  which  the  other  would  be  very  obscure  but  for  the 
explanation.  First,  we  would  wonder  how  the  Jews  could 
dare,  in  a  foreign  city  like  Damascus,  to  watch  the  gates  night 
and  day  to  kill  a  man  whom  they  hated;  and  our  wonder 
would  never  cease,  did  we  not  know  from  Paul's  account  that 
the  governor  of  the  city  was  watching  for  the  same  purpose, 
and  that  therefore  the  Jews  were  acting  in  concert  with  him. 
Second,  it  would  be  a  mystery  how  Paul  could  be  let  down 
^'through  the  wall"  in  a  basket,  had  we  not  his  own  more 
explicit  statement,  that  it  was  "  through  a  irindou\"  When, 
in  addition  to  this,  we  visit  Damascus  at  the  present  day,  and 
observe  that  in  one  part  of  the  city  there  are  houses  whose 
uppermost  stories  rest  on  the  wall,  with  windows  looking  out 
over  the  wall,  the  accuracy  of  both  writers  is  strikingly 
attested. 
Cit^sis\t  ^-  "^^^  "^^*^  incident  in  Acts  is  Paul's  arrival  in  Jeru- 
lem^'^"^*  salem,  where  the  discij)les,  though  they  may  have  heard  of 
his  conversion,  were  doubtful  whether  he  was  a  real  disciple 
till  they  were  reassured  by  Barnabas;  and  where  he  preached 
l)oldly  until  the  Jews  went  about  to  kill  him,  when  the 
brethren  took  him  down  to  Cresarea  and  sent  him  away  to 
Tarsus  (ix.  26-30).  This  same  journey  to  Jerusalem  comes 
next  in  Paul's  account  of  himself.  He  names  the  apostles 
whom  he  saw  there,  Cephas  and  James.  Had  he  written  not 
to  tell  the  truth,  but  to  confirm  Acts,  he  would  iiave  named 
more  of  them  to  agree  better  with  the  plural  of  apostles  used 


NEW    TEriTAMENT    BOOKS.  99 

in  Acts;  but  he  gives  the  exact  number,  and  it  .still  confirms 
Acts.  He  says  nothing  about  his  preaching  in  Jerusalem, 
or  about  the  plots  to  kill  him,  or  about  his  departure  to 
Tarsus ;  but  he  next  says,  "  Then  I  came  into  the  regions  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia,"  which  agrees  with  the  statement  of  Acts, 
that  he  was  sent  away  to  Tarsus,  tlie  capital  of  Cilicia. 

6.  Having  sent   Paul   away    to    Tarsus,  Acts   leaves    him -^^ '?}''" 

o  •'  '  work  In 

there  until  Barnabas  goes  over  to  Tarsus  to  seek  for  Saul,  |J7iifia°** 
finds  him,  and  brings  him  to  Antiocli  (xi.  25,  26).  The 
interval,  as  we  gather  from  the  received  chronology  of  Acts, 
was  from  the  year  39  to  the  year  43,  about  four  years  Luke 
says  nothing  as  to  how  Paul  was  engaged  during  this  time, 
though  we  should  readily  infer,  from  his  ceaseless  activity  at 
other  times,  that  he  was  preaching;  and  this  interonce  is  con- 
firmed by  the  very  next  statement  which  Paul  makes  of  him- 
self. He  says:  "I  was  still  unknown  by  face  to  the  churches 
of  Judea  which  were  in  Christ:  but  they  only  heard  say,  He 
that  once  persecuted  us  now  preaches  the  faith  of  which  he 
once  made  havoc;  and  they  glorified  God  in  me"  (Gal.  i. 
22-24). 

7.  In  Acts  we  next  follow  Paul  on  his  first  tour  amont;  the  as  to  the 

°  stoning  Bt 

Gentiles,  the  incidents  of  which  he  has  no  occasion  to  mention  Lystra. 
in  his  Epistles;  but  oven  here,  where  the  Epistles  and  the 
history  stand  most  widely  apart,  they  are  not  without  coin- 
cidence. On  this  tour  Paul  was  stoned  at  Lystra  by  Jows 
who  had  followed  him  from  Antioch  and  Iconium,and  left  for 
dead.  Many  years  afterward,  when  he  was  enumerating  to  the 
Corinthians  his  various  sufferings  for  Clirist,  he  says,  "Once 
was  I  .stoned  "  (11.  Cor.  xi.  25) ;  and  the  reference  is  undoubt- 
edly to  the  stoning  mentioned  in  Acts. 

8.  After  Paul's  return   from  his  first  tour  the  controversy  As  to  the 

.         .    confer- 
about   circumcision   aro.se  in  Antioch,  an  account  of  which  is^pfeon 

'  circum- 

given  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  and  another  in  the<^''*'o°- 
second  chapter  of  (Jalatians,  so  dilK'rent  as  to  be  declared  con- 
tradictory. We  have  already  considered  the  points  of  alleged 
contradiction,  ami  these  are  sufficient  proof  that  neither  account 
was  made  up  from  the  other.  We  now  propose  to  point  out 
the  coincidences  between  them. 


100  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

c^^moan-*  (^)  '^^^  porson.s  seiit  up  to  Jerusalem  are  diiFerently  rep- 
ions,  resented,  yet  the  representations  are  harmonious.  In  Acts 
they  are  Paul  and  Barnai)as  and  "certain  others  of  them."  In 
Galatians,  Paul  says :  "  I  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem  with 
Barnabas,  taking  Titus  also  with  me."  Now,  if  the  record  in 
Actri  had  been  made  up  from  the  Epistle,  it  would  naturally 
have  specified  Titus  instead  of  including  him  in  the  vague 
expression,  "  certain  others;"  and  if  it  had  been  made  up  at 
random  without  accurate  knowledge,  it  could  scarcely  have 
hit  upon  this  expression. 

(2)  Pur-  (2)  The  purpose  of  the  mission  is  expressly  stated  in  Acts; 
the  visit,  they  were  sent  up  to  the  apostles  and  elders  about  this  question 

of  circumcising  the  Gentile  converts.  In  Galatians  the  same 
purpose  is  implied,  though  it  is  nowhere  exjjressly  stated.  It 
is  implied  in  the  struggle  over  the  attempted  circumcision  of 
Titus,  and  in  the  agreement  entered  into  between  Paul  and 
the  other  three  apostles  as  to  their  respective  missions  to  the 
circumcision  and  the  uncircumcision.  But  while  this  implica- 
tion is  obvious  when  the  two  accounts  arc  read  in  connection, 
it  is  not  sufficiently  apparent  in  the  Epistle,  if  read  alone,  to 
have  suggested  the  account  in  the  history. 

(3)  The  (3)  Acts  represents  the  apostles  Peter  and  James  as  ex- 

appruviil  ^  /         ^  ^         ^  * 

an/*^'*''^    pressing,  in   a   meeting   of  the   church,  full   apj)roval   of  the 
James      position  held  on  the  mooted  question  by  Barnabas  and  Paul ; 
while  the   Epistle,  without   mentioning  the   public   meeting, 
declares  that  the    same  apostles,  in  a  private  meeling  not  men- 
tioned in  Acts,  expressed  the  same  approval.     The  fact  of  this 
expression  of  approval  is  the  same  in  both  accounts,  while  the 
two  combine  to  show  that  it  was  expressed  first  privately  and 
afterward  publicly.     That  the  two  accounts  vary  so  widely  in 
details,  yet  without  contradiction,  and  agree  so  perfectly  in  the 
main  result,  can  be  explained  only  on  the  ground  that  each  is 
accurate  so  far  as  it  goes. 
1)  Pauls        (4)   In   both   accounts   the  persons  in  opposition  lo  Paul, 
yentsin    though  represented  in  quite  different  terms,  are  the  same.     In 
lem.         Acts  they  are  styled  "certain  of  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  who 
believed;"  in    Galatians,  "  false    brethren    privily  brought  in, 
who  came  in   privily  to  "spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in 


NKU      IKSI  A.MKN  r    I'.OOKS.  101 

Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might  bring  us  into  bondage."  The 
two  modes  of  describing  them  diifer  so  widely  as  to  sliow  that 
neither  description  was  taken  from  the  other,  and  the  points 
of  coincidence  can  be  due  to  nothing  but  the  trutlifuluess  of 
both. 

!).   When    Paul   started  on  his   second  tour,  he  took  Si  his '^^'"  ^''•' 
with  him  in  pUiee  of  Barnabas,  who  wa*  his  companion  on  the°[,  pgf,p^ 
first  t<»nr;  and   Sihis  continued  with   him,  according  to  Acts,  tmn-'"^ 
until  they  were  together  in  Corinth,  when  he  disappears  from 
the  narrative  and  is  seen  in  it  no  more  (xv.  40;  xviii.  5).     In 
striking  harmony  with  this  we  find  that  in  tlie  two  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians,  which  were  written  during  Paul's  stay 
in  Corinth,  the   name   of  Silas  is  joined   with   Paul's   in    the 
salutation.     This  shows  that  Acts  is  correct  in  its  representa- 
tion, and  it  affords  no  mean   evidence   of  the  authenticitv  of 
these  two  Ej)istles. 

10.  Among  the  first  incidents  that  occurred  on  this  second  A^  to  the 

...  .  .  circum- 

tour  was  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  (xvi.  1-3).  This  act,  oc-  x-^'°'ihv 
curring  so  sood  after  Paul's  positive  refusal  to  circumcise  Titus, 
is  a  surprise;  and  when  it  is  considered  in  connection  with 
Paul's  well  known  position  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  no  longer 
i)inding,  it  has  the  appearance  of  inconsistency,  and  it  has  been 
declared  incredible.'  But  here  it  is  said  that  he  circumcised 
Timothy  "because  of  the  Jews  who  dwelt  there;  for  they  all 
knew  that  his  father  was  a  Greek ;"  that  is,  it  was  done  to 
prevent  that  prejudice  against  Timothy,  as  an  uncircumcised 
half  Hel)rew,  which  would  have  crippled  his  influence  among 
the  Jews.  Xow,  this  is  the  very  motive  by  which  Paul  him- 
self declares  that  he  was  governed  in  his  dealings  with  the 
Jews.  He  says:  "To  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  T 
might  gain  Jews;  to  them  that  are  under  tlic  law,  as  under 
the  law,  not  bein^  myself  under  the  law,  th;it  T  might  gain 
them  that  are  under  the  law"  (I.  Cor.  ix.  20).      He  could  not 

'"Tli.it  the  same   Paul   who  in  be  circumcised  from  n^gard  to  the 

Jerusalem     resisted    with    all    his  same  persons,  belongs  undoubtedly 

might  the   proposal    to   circumcise  to  the  simply  incredible  side  of  the 

Titus  for  the  sake  of  the  .lews  and  Acts    of    the    Apostles."       i  r.;iur, 

.lewish  Christinns,  should  sfion  after  /'<(»//,  i.  12"),  note), 

himself    have   caused    Tiuiotliy    fo  u\n 


in  Phil 
ippi 


102  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

have  acted  on  this  rule  and  refused  the  circumcision  of  men  of 
Jewish  blood  like  Timothy;  and  yet  the  rule  did  not  bind 
him  to  the  circunicision  of  Gentiles  like  Titus,     So,  then,  Acts 
represents  Paul  as  pursuing,  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  the  line 
of  conduct  laid  down  in  his  Epistle.     Instead  of  the  act  being 
incredible,  therefore,  and    reflecting  discredit  on  Acts,  it  has 
an  important  bearing  ift  the  opposite  direction, 
secution'^         11.  After  the    circumcision    of  Timothy  at  Lystra,  Paul 
and  his  company  are  represented  as  passing  through  various 
districts  of  Asia  Minor  until  they  came  to  Troas,  whence  they 
went  over  into  Macedonia,  and  preached  at  Philippi.     During 
the  stay  here  Paul  and  Silas  are  represented  as  being  scourged 
and  cast  into  prison,  whence  they  were  released  by  proclaim- 
ing their  Roman  citizenship.      To  the  cliurch  which  he  estab- 
lished there   Paul  afterward   addressed  an  Ep'stle,  and  in  it 
occurs  the  following  passage:  "To  you  it  has  been  granted  in 
the  behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to  believe  on  him,  but  also  to 
suffer  on  his  behalf:  having  the  same  conflict  which  ye  saw 
in  me,  and  now  hear  to  be  in  me"  (Phil.  i.  29,  30).     Here  is 
an    evident  allusion   to  suffering   which    they  harl  seen   him 
endure,  and    it   corresponds    to    the    suffering   mentioned   in 
Acts;  but  the  reference  is  too  vague  to  be  the  work  of  an 
impostor,  yet  it  is  sufficiently   definite  to  show  that   he   did 
suffer  somewhat  as  is  represented  in  Acts.     He  makes  another 
and  similiar  allusion  to  the  same  suffering  in  writing  to  the 
chivrch  in  Thessalonica,  to  which  city  he  went  directly  from 
Philippi.    He  says:  "Having  suffered  before,  and  been  shame- 
fully entreated,  as  you  know,  in   Philippi,  we   waxed   hold   in 
our  God  to  speak  to  you  the  gospel   of  God   in   mueli   afllic- 
tion "  (I.  TIh'ss.  ii.   2).     There  can  be   no  doubt  that  this  is 
another  allusion  to  the  same  incident,  yet  it  is  made  in  a  man- 
ner so  incidental  as  to  prove  that  it  was  not  intended  to  sup- 
port the  statement  of  Acts.     Thus  these  two  Epistles  unite  to 
sustain   the   reliability   of  the    narrative   in   Acts,  while  it  in 
turn  reflects  credit  on  them  as  genuine  productions  of  Paul's 
pen. 

12.   In  the  Epistle  to  the  Thcssalonians,  Paul  says:  "For 
ye,  brethren,  became  imitat'us  of  the  churches  of  God  which 


Ni:\V     IKSTAMKNT    I'.O' 'KS.  1 0.-J 

are  in  Jiulta   in  Christ  Jcsu.s:  lor  ye  uLso  »iittered    the   ^'^^^p^^ecu^ 
things  of  your  own  countrymen,  even  as  they  did  of  the  Jews  "  Thlssaio- 
(I.  Thess.  ii.  14).     Now  this  at  first  glance  seems  to  be  incon-"'^" 
sistent  with  the  account  in  Acts;   for  there  the  Jews  are  rep- 
resented as  the  instigators  of  the  persecution  in  Thessalouica, 
and  they   might   be  fairly   represented   as  the  authors  of  it. 
But  on  closer   inspection   we  see   that   they  "took   to   them 
certain  vile  fellows  of  the  rabble,  and  gathering  a  crowd,  set 
the  city  on   an   uproar;  and  as'^aulting   the   house   of  Jason, 
they   sought   to   bring   tiiem   forth   to    the  ])eople "  (xvii.  5), 
Thus  a  fact  obscurely  brought  out  in  the  history  is  tnentioned 
as  a  well  known  circumstance   in  the  Epistle — well   known, 
that  is,  to  the  victims  of  the  persecution. 

13.  The    coincidences    between     First    Corinthians,    the^enpgg 
first  in  order  of  time  of  Paul's  admitted  Epistles,  and  Acts,  cor*^^ 
are  numerous  and  striking.     We  shall  mention  a  few  of  them 
briefly.     According  to  Acts,  he  came  to  Ephesus,  whence  the 
Epistle  was   written    (I.  Cor.    xvi.   8,  9),    from  Galatia   f»ndJV^^M° 
Phrygia  (xviii.  23;  xix.  1);  and  this  is  implied  in  the  Epistle  [f^^"'"" 
by   the    remark,    "  Now    concirning    the    collection    for    the 
saints,  as  I  gave  order  to  the  churches  in  Galatia,  so  also  do 
ye"  (xvi.  1).     According  to  Acts,  Prisci  11a  and  Aquila  had {;r'esence 
gone  to  Ephesus  with  Paul  (xviii.  18,  19)  ;  and  in  the  Epistle ''^''i"""- 
written  from  Ephesus,  he  sends  to  the  Corinthions  their  salu- 
tation   (xvi.    19).      According   to    Acts,   Apollos    visited    thebors'oV* 
church  which  Paul  had  planted  in  Corinth,  and  labored  in  it    ^^  °*' 
successfully  (xviii.  24-28)  ;  and  in  the  Epistle  Paul  alludes  to 
this   by   saying  of  the   church,  "  I   planted,  Apollos  watered, 

but   God   gave    the    increase"    (iii.    (j).     According    to    Acts,  ^')  •^'^'s 

°  \  '^  o  '  open  door 

Paul's  success  at  ?^j)hesus  w;is  at  one  time  so  great  that  "  not  *^*-i''>''" 
a  few  of  them  who  practised  curious  arts  brought  their  books 
together  and  burned  them  before  all  :  and  they  counted  the 
price  of  them,  and  found  it  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver. 
So  mightily  frew  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ami  prevailed  "  (xix. 
19,  20);  and  in  the  Ei)isth'  he  says:  "I  will  tarry  at  Ephesus 
until  Pentecost ;  for  a  great  and  effectual  door  is  open  to  rae, 
and  there  are  many  adversaries"  (xvi.  8,  9).  According  to 
Acts,  while   Paul    was  preaching  at   Ephesus,   as   an    indirect 


104  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

(j>) Spread  j.^.syi^  of  his  preaching,  "all  they  who  dwelt  in  Asia  heard 

^sU°  *'^^  word  of  the  Lord,  both  Jews  and  Greeks"  (xix.  10) ;  and 
in  the  Epistle  he  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "The  churches  of 
Asia  salute  you"  (xvi.  19). 

mthn.  j4    jjj   ti^^,   second   Epistle   to   the   Corinthians  we  find  a 

number  of  similar  coincidences  with  Acts,  and  also  a  much 
larger  number  with  the  first  Epistle  to  the  same  ciiurch,  with 
which   our  jn-esent   argument  is  not  concerned.     In  Acts  we 

'1^  The     are  told  that  under  the  leadership  of  Demetrius,  a  silversmith, 

mob  at  . 

Kphesus;  a  niob  was  raised  to  assault  Paul,  that  they  seized  Gains  and 
Aristarchus,  companions  of  Paul,  and  rushed  into  the  theater; 
that  Paul,  evidently  unwilling  that  these  two  friends  should 
suffer  in  his  stead,  "  was  minded  to  enter  in  to  the  people,"  but 
that  the  disciples  suffered  him  not,  and  that  certain  of  the 
*  chief  officers  '  of  Asia  also  sent  to  him  and  besought  him  not 
to  'adventure  himself  into  the  theater'"  (xix.  23-31).  In  the 
Epistle  Paul  says:  "For  we  would  not  have  you  ignorant, 
brethren,  concerning  our  affliction  which  befell  us  in  Asia,  that 
we  were  weighed  down  exceedingly  beyond  our  power,  inso- 
much that  we  despaired  of  life:  yea,  we  ourselves  have  had 
the  answer  of  death  within  ourselves,  that  we  should  not  trust 
in  ourselves,  but  in  God  who  raiseth  the  dead  ;  who  delivered 
us  out  of  so  great  a  death,  and  will  deliver"  (i.  8-10).     On 

Jjaiey  on  fhis  coincidence  Paley  well  says ;  "  I  can  not  believe  that  any 
forger  whatever  should  fall  upon  an  expedient  so  refined  as  to 
exhibit  sentiments  adapted  to  a  isituation,  and  leave  his  readers 
to  find  out  that  situation  from  tlu;  history;  still  less  that  the 
author  of  a  history  should  go  about  to  frame  facts  and  circum- 
stances fitted  to  supply  the  sentin)ents  which  he  found  in  the 
letter."*     In  Acts  it   is  said   that  after  Paul   left  Athens  and 

'■-  ]^i^^'    went  to  Corinth,  Silas  and  Timothy  came  to  him  from  Mace- 
sent  from  '  ■^ 

iViaf"*"'  ''•'"•'^  (xviii.  1,  5);  and  in  the  Epistle  Paul  says  to  the  Cor- 
inthians: "When  I  was  present  with  you  and  was  in  want,  I 
was  not  a  burden  on  anyn)an;  for  the  brethren,  when  they 
came  from  Macedonia,  supplied  the  measure  of  my  want" 
(xi.  9).  Here  it  is  apparent  that  brethren  came  from  Mace- 
donia, and  the  way  in  which   they  arc   mentioned,  "the  breth- 

'  Hiifdi'  Pniilliiiiii ,  ill  Ifira. 


NKW    'I'KSTAMKNT    HOOKS.  105 

ren,  Avhcu  thty  came  from  Macedonia,"  >h()\vs  that  they  were 
well  known  brethren;  and  the  remark  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  fact  that  Silas  and  Timotliy  had  come  as  stated  in  Acts, 
while  it  shows  the  additional  circumstance  for  which  it  is 
chiefly  introduced  :  that  th<  y  brought  means  to  supply  Paul's 
personal  wants.     In  tlie  account  of  Paul's  first  visit  to  Corinth,  f)  cor- 

•••111  1  1      1  •  !•       "iththe 

it  IS  evident  that  he  went  not  bovond  that  ci(v  to  cvaneelizci'mitof 

•  °  second 

more  distant  localities,  but  returned  thence  to  Antioch  whence  t"""^- 
he  had  started  out  (xviii.  18-22);  and  in  the  Epistle  he  ex- 
presses the  hope  that,  "as  your  faith  groweth,  we  shall  be 
magnified  in  you  according  to  our  province  unto  further  abuii 
dance,  so  as  to  preach  the  gospel  even  to  the  parts  beyond 
you"(x.  15, 16).  It  seems  impossible  tliat  a  coincidence  such 
as  this  should  be  the  result  of  contrivance  or  forgery. 

15.   We  shall  continue  this  line  of  evidence  no  farther  tlian  ^''^**  ^^' 

mans  ; 

to   include  some   coincidences    found   in   the   Epistle    to    the 
Romans,  the  only  one  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  acknowledged 
by  skeptics  to  be  genuine  which  we  have  not  yet  employed. 
Near  the  close  of  the  Epistle  the  writer  says :  "  But  now  I  go (D  Pauls 
to  Jerusalem,  ministeriner  to  the  saints.     For  it  hath  been  the"pyjoJe- 

'  °      _  _  ni.Kalem; 

good  pleasure  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  make  a  certain 
contril)ution  for  the  poor  among  the  saints  who  arc  at  Jeru- 
salem "  (xv.  25,  26).  From  this  it  appears  that  a  journey  to 
Jerusalem  was  about  to  be  undertaken,  and  that  the  purpose 
of  it  was  to  minister  to  the  poor  saints  in  that  city.  Certain 
statements  in  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  make  it 
obvious  that  the  journey  in  question  is  the  one  described  in  the 
twentieth  and  twenty-first  cha})tcrs  of  Acts.  In  that  descrip- 
tion, however,  though  very  minute  in  many  particulars,  not  a 
word  is  said  about  the  purpose  of  the  journey  or  about  any 
contribution  ;  but  strange  as  this  omission  is,  both  items  arc 
i)rought  out  in  an  incidental  way  in  a  later  passage,  and  under 
j)eculiar  circumstances.  .Vfter  Paul  had  reached  Jerusalem 
and  performed  his  task,  had  been  cast  into  prison  and  sent  to 
Cresarea  to  be  tried  by  Felix  the  governor,  in  his  defense  be- 
fore the  latter  he  says :  "  Now,  after  many  years  I  came  to 
bring  alms  to  my  nation  and  offerings"  (xxiv.  17).  In  Acts 
it   is   said    of  Paul,  while    he   was  yet    in   Ephesus,  that    he 


106  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

pian'for "  "  purposed  in  the  Spirit,  Avhcn  he  had  passed  through  Macedonia 
loiiraeys-  ^^^  Aohaia,  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  saying,  After  that  I  have  been 
there,  I  must  also  see  Eome"  (xix.  21).  When  this  Epistle 
was  written  lie  had  accomplished  so  much  of  this  purpose  as 
to  have  passed  through  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  and  was  now 
*  about  to  prosecute  it  further.  He  says  in  the  Epistle:  "I 
would  not  have  you  ignorant,  brethren,  that  oftentimes  I  pur- 
posed to  come  to  you  (and  was  hindered  hitherto),  that  I  might 
have  some  fruit  among  you  even  as  among  the  rest  of  the 
Gentiles"  (i.  13),  which  confirms  the  statement  in  Acts  that 
he  had  this  purpose.  Again  in  the  Epistle,  after  speaking  of 
his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  says :  "  When,  therefore,  I  have 
accomplished  this,  and  have  sealed  to  them  this  fruit,  I  will  go 
on  by  you  into  Spain"  (xv.  28).  Here  is  the  expression  of  the 
remainder  of  the  purpose  'set  forth  in  Acts,  with  the  addition 
of  a  contemplated  journey  to  Spain.  That  the  complete 
agreement  with  Acts  thus  made  out  is  purely  incidental,  and 
not  a  result  of  contrivance,  is  argued  by  Paley  as  follows: 
"  If  the  passage  in  the  Epistle  was  taken  from  that  in  Acts, 
why  was  Spain  put  in  ?  If  the  passage  in  Acts  was  taken 
from  that  in  the  Epistle,  why  was  Spain  left  out?  If  the  two 
passages  were  unknown  to  each  other,  nothing  can  account  for 
their  conformity  but  truth."  '  In  the  Epistle  Paul  says : 
"  From  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  even  unto  Illyricum,  I 
have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ"  (xv.  19).  In  Acts, 
(3)  his      Illvricum   is  not  mentioned   among  the  regions  in  which  he 

f (reach*  "  o  o 

ng"un-  liad   preached:  but  it  is  said   of  his  last  visit  to  Macedonia, 

to  niyri-  .11 

cum;"  which  was  bordered  on  the  west  by  Illyricum,  t\mt '^  whevi  he 
li(td  (/one  through  those  parts  and  had  given  them  much  exhor- 
tation, he  came  into  Greece"  (xx.  2,  3).  When  he  "had  gone 
through  those  parts  "  which  constitute  Macedonia,  he  had  gone 
as  far  as  to  Illyricum,  but  had  not  gone  into  it;  and  this  is 
precisely  what  his  words,  "even  unto  Illyricum,"  mean.     In 

4)  his      Acts,  Paul  is  represented,  while  on  his  iournev  to  Jerusalem, 

predicted  ^  '  '  j  .  y 

liR-nUt'i"  '^"^  saying  to  to  the  Ephesian  elders:  "  I  go  bound  in  the  spirit 

\em^      to  Jerusalem,  not  knowing  the   things   that  shall    befall    me 

there,  save  that  the  Holy  Spirit  tc.sdfioth  to  me  in  every  city, 

'  Ilnrai'  Pmilivae,  in  loco. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  107 

saying  that  bonds  and  afflictions  abide  mo"  (xx.  22,  23).  By 
"every  citv  "  he  evidently  means  every  city  through  which  he 
had  passed  on  his  journey.  In  the  Epislle  we  find,  in  strong 
confirmation  of  this,  that  when  he  was  about  to  start  on  the 
journey  he  had  the  same  apprehension  ;  fi3r  he  says :  "  Now  I 
beseech  you,  brethren,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the 
love  of  the  Spirit,  tliat  ye  strive  together  with  me  in  your 
prayers  to  God  for  me,  that  I  may  be  delivered  from  them  that 
arc  disobedient  in  Judea,  and  that  my  ministration  which  I 
have  for  Jerusalem  may  be  accei)table  to  the  saints"  (xv.  30, 
31).  It  is  quite  certain  from  this  instance,  and  it  would  be  if 
we  had  no  other,  that  noithrr  of  these  two  books  was  written 
for  the  purpose  of  conforming  to  the  other;  for  if  Acts  had 
been  written  with  suc!i  a  purpose  in  view,  the  account  of 
Paul's  imprisonment,  and  the  consequent  failure  of  his  prayer 
to  be  delivered  from  the  disol)edient  in  Judea,  would  have 
been  omitted  or  greatly  modified ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Epistle  had  been  forged  after  the  event,  it  would  not  have 
contained  a  prayer  which  the  writer  knew  to  have  been  frus- 
trated by  the  course  cf  events.  "This  single  consideration," 
says  Paley,  "convinces  me  that  no  concert  or  confederacy 
whatever  subsisted  between  the  Epistle  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles ;  and  that  whatever  coincidences  have  been  or  can  be 
pointed  out  between  them  are  unsophisticated,  and  are  the 
result  of  truth  and  reality."' 

We  here  conclude  our  evidence  from  this  source,  tliough  other 
we  have  by  no  means  exhausted  it.  For  a  fuller  exhibition  this sub- 
of  it,  and  especially  for  specifications  which  prove  the  gen- 
uineness and  authenticity  of  the  EpistU-s  ascribed  to  Paul, 
the  student  is  referred  to  Paley's  Horae  Paulinae,  a  work 
from  which  a  large  part  of  the  matter  in  this  chapter  is 
derived,  and  which,  though  it  has  been  before  tlie  public  since 
the  year  1790,  and  has  been  regarded  from  (he  time  of  its 
first  publication  as  a  first  class  defense  of  Acts  and  Paul's 
Epistles,  has  never  been  replied  to  by  an  unbeliever.  For  a 
further  statement  of  the  coincidences  between  the   Gospels, 

'  III.,   EpiMlf   iit  tlir  Royiniis,  No    (J. 


108         CREDIBILITY    OF    THE    NEW     TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

the  reader  is  referred  to  Blunt's  Coincidences,  a  work  to 
which  the  present  writer  acknowledges  much  indebtedness, 
frurla-^^^  Thus  far  in  our  discussion  of  the  authenticity  of  the  New 
t\lu8^nr.  Testament  books  we  have  prosecuted  the  inquiry  without 
reference  to  the  accounts  of  miracles ;  and  having  applied  all 
the  tests  of  historical  criticism,  we  have  found  no  error  of 
fact,  no  discrepancy  between  these  documents  and  other  reli- 
able histories,  no  inconsistency  between  the  books  themselves 
in  regard  to  any  of  ti>e  multitudinous  details  into  which  their 
narratives  run.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  found  a  very  large 
number  of  those  undesigned  coincidences  in  detail  between 
them  and  other  books,  and  between  these  books  individually, 
which  are  found  only  in  such  writings  as  are  most  minutely 
accurate  in  every  particular.  The  same  can  not  be  said  of  the 
same  number  of  books  dealing  with  a  common  subject,  and 
entering  into  so  many  details,  in  all  human  literature.  It 
seems  a  perfectly  legitimate  conclusion  from  these  premises 
that  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  the  world  has  the 
most  authentic  historical  documents,  at  least  so  far  as  ordinary 
facts  of  history  are  concerned,  that  have  ever  been  written. 


chaptp:r  IX. 


POSITIONS  OF  UNBELIEVERS  IN  REFERENCE  TO  MIRACLES. 


The  conclusion  which   wo  have  reached   in  the  preceding  ||^^'';''jj^^_ 
chapters   of  this  Part   is  conceded   in  a  general  way  by  th('"^"^^'o" 
mass  of  modern   unbelievers;  that   is,  it  is  conceded  that,  in 
reference  to  all  except  their  accounts  of  miracles,  and  a  few 
details  calculated  to  lend  supporr  to  these  accounts,  the  New 
Testament  books  are  credible.' 

It    is   the    characteristic    of  all    unbelievers  to  deny  tlie  ^^^'j^'J^  of 
reality    of   miracles.      Those    of   them    who    affect    scientific  {jfj^^^^.s 'is 
methods  tacitly  adopt,  as  a  rule   of  historical  criticism,  that^^'^**- 
accounts  of  miracles  must  be  summarily  rejected  as  untrue.^ 
This  position  is  taken   on   various  grounds,  according  to   the 
varying  theories  of  the  parties. 

1.   By  atheists,  who  deny  that  there  is  a  God,  and  by  Pan- 
theists, who  deny  that  there  is  a  God  apart  from  the  forces  of 

'  Tlie    position  of    Strauss  is  an  torian  who  appioaclu's  liis  subject 

exception  to  this  remark.    He  says:  imbued  with  tlie  faith  of  the  churcli 

"  There  is  Httle  of  w'nicli  wp  can  say  finds  himself  confronted  at  the  very 

for  certain  tliat  it  took  place,  and  outset  with   the   most  stupendous 

of  all  to  which    the  faith  of  the  of  miracles,  the  fact  which  lies  at 

church    especially   attaches  itself,  the  root  of  Christianity  being  in  his 

the   miraculous   and   supernatural  eyes  that  the  only  begotten  Son  of 

matter  in  the  facts  and  destinies  of  (iod    descended    from    the    eterniil 

Jesus,  it  is  far  more  certain  tliat  it  throne  of  the  Godhead  to  the  earth. 

<lid  not  take   place."     Ntv  lAfe,  ii.  and  became  man  in   the  womb  of 

434.  the  virgin.     He  who  regards  this  as 

'"Till    we   have   new    light,    we  simply    and    aV)8olutely  a   miracle, 

shall  maintain  this  principle  of  his-  stejis  at    once   outside   of  all    hi.s- 

torical  criticism,  that  a  supernatural  torical  connection."    (Baur,  Chunh 

relation   can   not  be    accepted    as  Hht  .1.  1 ). 

saeh."  (Renan,  Jems,  Ah).  "  The  his- 

(109 


11<>  CKEDJlilLlTV    OF    THE 

ofAVhe-^  nature,  miraclos  are  held  to  be  impossible  ;  for,  according  to 
iheists^"  both  of  these  positions,  there  can  be  nothing  supernatural. 
no^ticf.  Agnostics,  who  claim  that  they  can  not  decide  whether  there 
is  a  personal  God  or  not,  must  be  equally  unable  to  decide 
whether  or  not  miracles  are  possible,  seeing  that  their  pos- 
sibility depends  on  the  existence  of  a  God  to  work  them. 
The  number  of  persons  who  are  either  Atheists,  Pantheists 
or  Agnostics  is  so  small,  and  the  tenets  of  these  parties  are 
so  far  apart  from  the  convictions  of  the  great  mass  of  man- 
kind, that  we  shall  not  dwell  on  their  position  farther  than  to 
state  it. 
^™™ed  2.  A  second  class,  who  admit  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that 
prooif°^  miracles  are  therefore  possible,  hold  it  to  be  impossible  to 
prove  that  a  miracle  has  been  wrought.'  Briefly  stated,  the 
argument  is  this:  All  human  experience  is  against  the  occur- 
rence of  miracles,  on  the  one  hand,  and  it  attests  the  very 
common  occurrence  of  false  testimony,  on  the  other ;  conse- 
quently, in  any  case  of  alleged  miracle,  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  testimony  to  it  is  deceptive  than  that  the  miracle 
actually  transpired.  This  argument  has  been  refuted  in  sev- 
eral ways,  and  so  successfully  refuted  that  many  of  the  most 
acute  infidels  now  reject  it."  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  it 
to  offset  its  universal  affirmative  by  another,  and  say,  Univer- 
sal experience  proves  that  miracles  can  be  proved;  for,  as  a 
matter  of  historical  fact,  men  of  all  ages  and  kindreds  have 
believed  them,  and  to  all  these  they  have  been  proved.  These 
include  the  immense  majority  of  men,  and  of  the  most 
enlightened  men.  To  say  that  it  is  impossible  to  ])rove  that 
which  has  been  actually  proved  to  the  .satisfiiction  of  nearly 
all  men,  is  to  speak  falsely,  or  to  use  the  words  deceitfully. 
h.^'im-"''  '^-  -'^  third  class,  and  the  only  class  of  infidels  with  whose 
t)'rm'>?  °'  position  it  concerns  us  to  deal,  admit  the  possibility  of  mir- 
acles, and   also    tlic  possibility  of   proving  the  occurrence  of 

'Tlie    liistorian    Hume   has   tlie  t)ut  in  the  name  of  constant  cxper- 

rredit  of  originating  thi.s  argument,  ience,  that  we  banish  miracle  from 

He  elaborated  it  in  his  celel)ratt'tl  history.     We  do  not  say  miracle  is 

Esiffii/  on  MirucliK.  impossible;  we  say  there  has  been 

'"It  is  not,  therefore,  in  tlic  hitherto  no  miracle  proved."  (Re- 
name of  this  or  that    iiliilnsopliy,  nan,  .7^8i'«,  44). 


NEW    TEijTAMKM     BOOKS.  Ill 

them  should  any  occur;  but  tliey  deny  that  the  evidence 
within  our  reach  is  sulHcient  for  tlie  proof  of  any  now  on 
reeortl.'  This  is  the  issue  which  the  experience  of  the  world 
and  couimon  sense  alike  present  as  the  one  to  he  discussed. 
Forasmuch  as  there  is  a  body  of  evidence  on  which  a  large 
majority  of  the  men  who  have  examined  it  base  a  belief  in 
certain  miracles,  the  task  imposed  on  unbelief,  and  one  which 
it  can  not  avoid  by  any  subterfuge,  is  to  show  that  tliis  l)<)dy 
of  evidence  is  insufficient;  and  especially  is  tliis  true,  when 
we  consider  that  those  who  liave  accepted  the  miracles  on  this 
evidence  will  readily  admit  that  no  miracles  can  be  proved  if 
tliese  can  not. 

Skeptics  have  felt  it  incumbent  on  themselves  to  take  defi- f,^^*;p'/^c»i 
nite  ground  nut  only  as  to  the  reality  of  the  New  Testament  |^^!;\J^® 
miracles,  but  also  as  to  the  origin  of  the  accounts  of  them  ^Z^^'"^*" 
with  which  the  >«ew  Testament  books  abound.  Some  have 
held  that  they  were  false  stories  deliberately  invented  by 
the  early  disciples  to  deceive  the  people ;  more  recently  it  has 
been  asserted  that  they  are  myths,  that  is,  stories  invented  to 
convey  truths  by  analogy,  but  not  propounded  as  actual 
occurrences;  and  yet  again,  they  are  regarded  as  legends,  or 
stories  which  had  their  origin  in  natural  events,  but  which, 
by  natural  exaggeration  as  they  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth 
in  early  times,  took  upon  them  miraculous  details,  until  they 
assumed  their  present  form."  If  the  direct  evidence  for 
their  reality  should  prove,  after  proper  consideration,  un- 
convincing, it  might  be  worth  while,  as  a  mere  matter 
of  curiosity,  to  di.scuss  the  relative  n)erits  of  these  three 
theories ;  but  in  this  case  they  would  have  lost  all  value 
as  facts  bearing  on  human  destiny  and  duty;  and,  conse- 
(juently,  any  inquiry  into  the  real  merits  of  these  positions 
may  be  turned  over  to  theorists  who  have  the  time  to  waste  on 
them,  while  the  earnest  incjuirer  must  devote  himself  to  the 
fjuestion,  Is  the  positive  evidence^  of  the  reality  of  New  Tesfa- 
inent  miracles  sufficient  to  command  our  credence? 

The  most  common   and    popular  ground   for  the  denial  of 

'  lb.  of  the  lei,'endrtry  theory  ;  Strauss  of 

■  iJtMian  is  an  eminont   advoc.iti'    tlu-  invtliioal. 


112 


CREDIBILITY    OF   THK 


A  com- 
mon oh- 
jectiou  to 
the  evi- 
deuce. 


The  ob- 
jection 
rontains 
two  fal^^c 
assura))- 
tious. 


A  test 
case: 


liow  the 
test  ap- 
li»-d  bv 
I'hnri- 
set's ; 


the  sufficiency  of  tlie  evidence  is  this:  that  the  miracles,  hav- 
ing been  wrought  or  supposed  to  have  been  wrought  in  an 
age  fond  of  believing  in  such  events,  were  received  as  real 
without  the  application  of  the  tests  by  which  their  reality 
could  be  demonstrated.  In  other  words,  it  is  claimed  that 
they  were  not  wrought  under  scientific  conditions,'  The  best 
way  to  test  this  assertion  is  to  look  into  the  record  and  see 
how  the  miracles  were  actually  received,  and  what  tests  of 
their  reality  were  actually  applied. 

First,  we  remark  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  habit  of 
the  age  in  which  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  lived  with  respect  to 
miracles  in  general,  and  those  of  these  men  in  particular,  there 
was  certainly  a  large  class  of  persons,  including  the  most  acute 
:uid  intelligent  of  the  Jews,  who  most  persistently  refused  to 
credit  them;  and  these  men  were  sufficient  in  number  and  in 
influence  to  check  any  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  masses  to 
receive  them  without  (piestion.  Second,  we  have  a  detailed 
account  of  the  way  in  which  the  miracles  were  tested  by  this 
class  of  men,  and  by  a  comparison  of  that  with  the  methods 
which  would  be  applied  by  scientific  men  of  our  own  day,  we 
can  determine  how  much  credence  we  should  give  to  the 
assertion  in  question. 

A  notable  case  in  point  is  found  in  the  ninth  chapter  of 
the  Gospel  of  John.  It  is  the  case  of  a  man  said  to  have  been 
born  blind,  and  to  have  been  healed  by  Jesus.  After  the 
neighbors  and  former  acquaintances  of  the  man,  who  was  a 
beggar,  had  satisfied  themselves  that  a  miracle  had  been 
wrought,  as  if  to  test  their  own  judgment  of  the  case  they 
brought  tiie  man  to  certain  Pharisees,  the  party  most  unwill- 
ing to  admit  the  reality  of  the  miracles,  that  they  might  see 
what  those  intelligent  enemies  of  Jesus  could  say  of  the  case. 
A  formal  investigation  followed,  and  its  method  is  clearly 
traced.  They  first  a.sked  the  man  how  he  received  his  sigiit, 
aiid  he  answered  according  to  the  f:icts  (verse  15).  This  shows 
that  they  knew  he  now  had  his  sight,  which  could  be  known 
at  once  by  his  appearance.  Then,  after  an  irrelevant  discussion 
about  his  doing  such   cures  on  the  snbbath,  and  an  cfpriUy  ir- 

'  i;cii;m.  ./,..-, -N.  V.'k  44. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  113 

relevant  question  as  to  what  the  man  thought  of  Jesus,  the 
Pl)arisees  very  properly  demanded  proof  tliat  the  man  had 
been  born  blind.  They  already  had  the  testimony  of  the 
neighbors,  who  had  brouglit  him  to  them  as  one  who  had  been 
born  blind,  but  with  this  they  were  not  satisfied,  and  they 
called  for  his  parents  (16-18).  When  the  parents  appeared 
they  were  confronted  with  the  threatening  question,  "  Is  this 
your  son,  who  ye  say  was  born  blind  ?  how  then  doth  he 
now  see?"  Being  alarmed,  they  answered:  ''We  know  that 
this  is  our  son,  and  that  he  was  born  blind  :  but  how  he  now 
seeth  we  Icnow  not :  he  is  of  age ;  he  shall  speak  for  himself" 
(19-21).  The  historian  remarks,  concerning  the  last  part  of 
this  answer,  that  they  gave  it  because  they  were  afraid  that 
they  would  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue  if  they  should  say 
anything  equivalent  to  confessing  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  (22, 
23).  The  Pharisees  then  called  again  to  the  man,  and  said: 
"Give  God  the  glory:  we  know  that  this  man  is  a  sinner," 
thus  indirectly  admitting  that  the  miracle  had  been  wrought, 
though  unwilling  to  allow  Jesus  the  credit  of  it.  The  process 
of  the  investigation,  reduced  to  the  simplest  statement,  was 
this:  they  first  ascertained  that  the  man  could  see;  they  next 
inquired  what  Jesus  had  done  to  him ;  and  seeing  that  what 
he  had  done  was  only  to  put  moistened  clay  on  his  eyes  and 
require  him  to  wash  it  off,  they  next  inquired  as  to  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  having  been  born  blind,  and  they  close  this 
inquiry  with  the  testimony  of  his  parents. 

Let  us  now  suppose  that,  instead  of  the  Pharisees  who  ij^^^y  ^t^^ 
tested  this  miracle,  it  had  been  done  bv  a  "commission  com- ]'.>7^'**"" 
posed  of  physiologists,  physicians,  chemists  and  persons  ex|>er- 
ienced  in  historical  criticism,"  as  is  demanded  by  M.  Renan. 
What  advantage  would  they  have  had  over  the  Pharisees  in 
det<'rmining  whether  the  man,  when  first  brought  before  them, 
could  see?  It  is  clear  that  no  knowledge  of  physiology,  or 
chemistry,  or  medicine,  or  historical  criticism,  could  help  them 
in  this.  The  most  stupid  plantation  negro  could  settle  the 
question  at  once  by  striking  with  his  hand  toward  the  man's 
face  and  seeing  whether  he  winked.  When  it  was  settled  that 
the    man    could   see,  and  the   (juestinn   was  raised,  What    had 


114  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

Jesus  done  to  give  him  sight  ?  the  commission  wouUl  have 
an  advantage  over  the  Pharisees,  in  that  they  would  know 
more  certainly,  on  account  of  their  scientific  attainments,  that 
merely  putting  clay  on  a  blind  man's  eyes  and  wasliing  it  off 
could  not  give  him  sight.  Uneducated  and  superstitious  men 
might  imagine  that  the  clay  had  some  mystic  power;  but 
scientific  men  would  know  better.  On  this  point  of  inquiry, 
then,  the  advantage  would  be  with  the  commission,  but  the 
advantage  would  be  in  favor  of  the  miracle.  As  to  the  next 
question,  whether  the  man  said  to  have  thus  received  sight 
was  born  blind,  what  more  conclusive  testimony  could  the 
commission  obtain,  or  what  more  could  they  wish,  than,  first, 
that  of  the  neighbors  who  had  known  the  man  as  a  blind 
beggar;  and,  secondly,  that  of  his  own  father  and  mother? 
Who,  indeed,  could  bo  so  good  witnesses  that  a  child  was  born 
blind  as  the  father  and  mother;  for  they  always  exhaust 
every  possible  means  of  testing  the  question  before  they  yield 
to  the  sad  conviction  that  their  child  is  blind  ? 

^tah!^^^  This  comparison  shows  that  in  testing  such  a  miracle  there 
need-  could  be  no  use  made  of  scientific  knowledge;  and  the  same  is 
true  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  in  general.  If,  in  the  case  just 
considered,  the  question  had  been,  AVhat  defect  in  the  organ  of 
sight  caused  the  man  to  be  blind  ?  or,  What  were  the  chemical 
constituents  of  the  clay  put  on  his  eye^?  a  knowledge  of 
physiology  or  of  chemistry  would  have  been  needed  for  the 
investigation,  and  so  in  general;  if  the  miracles  had  been  such 
that  to  test  their  reality  scientific  knowledge  would  have  been 
necessary,  the  evidence  which  we  have  would  be  incomplete ; 
but  the  most  unscientific  men  of  common  sense  can  know  when 
a  man  is  dead;  when  he  is  alive  and  active;  when  he  has  a 
high  fever;  i'^  a  cripple;  is  paralyzed,  etc.,  as  well  as  the  great- 
est scientist.  The  cry,  then,  that  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Te.st^ment  were  not  wrought  under  "scientific  conditions,"  is 
totally  irrelevant,  and  can  mislead  none  but  those  who  do  not 
pause  to  think. 

ohjec-  Several    other   theoretical  objections  to   miracles  usually 

lions  •'  " 

for?o"in    receive    attention    in    this  discussion,  such  as   their  assumed 
nT'"prooi'.  antecedent   inijMobability,  and    the    claim   that    they   are    dis- 


ments 

not 

ed  in  test 

ing  mira- 

acles 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  115 

credited  by  the  fact  that  many  other  accounts  of  miracles 
among  the  heathen,  and  among  believers  of  tlie  dark  ages,  are 
now  rejected  by  intelligent  Christians;  and  it  would  be  well 
for  us  to  consider  these,  if  we  were  aiming  to  exhaust  the  sub- 
ject; but  they  amount  to  nothing  at  all  if  the  direct  evidence 
for  miracles  is  conclusive.  All  antecedent  improbability  of 
any  fact  whatever  vanislies  in  the  presence  of  competent  proof 
of  the  fact;  and  disbelief  in  all  miracles  but  a  single  one  could 
not  discredit  that  one  if  the  evidence  for  it  were  conchisive. 
On  the  other  hand,  i^.  must  be  admitted  that  if  the  direct  evi- 
dence for  miracles  is  not  conclusive  in  itself,  no  conclusions 
drawn  from  the  discussion  of  these  theories  could  establish 
their  reality.  On  this  account  we  omit  the  further  consider- 
ation of  these  theories,  and  refer  the  student  to  works  devoted 
to  them.'  The  direct  evidence  shall  be  tlie  subject  of  our  next 
chapter. 

'  We  especially  commend  to  the    master  uiind«  (^  the  present  cen- 
student   Mozlev    on    Miracles,  and    tury. 
Trench  on  Miracles— two  works  bv 


CHAPTER   X. 

THE  DIRECT   EVIDENCE   FOR  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 
MIRACLES:    THE   RESURRECTION   OF  JESUS. 


N.T.  mir-        The  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  are  distribu(al)le  into 

Rcles 

ciassitie.i  1^^.^.  classes:  first,  those  wrought  by  Jesus;  second,  those 
wrought  upon  Jesus,  such  us  his  birth  and  his  resurrection ; 
third,  those  wrought  by  the  Apostles;  fourth,  the  inspiration 
of  the  Apostles;  and  fifth,  the  predictions  which  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles  uttered.  In  considering  the  evidence  of  their  reality, 
our  task  is  simplified  by  the  relation  which  all  of  them  sustain 

Themira-to  a  siutjie  One.     If  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead,  the  other  mir- 

<leof  the  /^  1      •         1  1         . 

restirrec-  aelcs  Will    be   admitted,  as  well   as  all   else  that  is  claimed  for 

t  ion  the  ^ 

testof  all.  Jesus  in  the  New  Testament.  This  is  freely  granted  by 
Strauss,  who  pronounces  the  resurrection  "the  crowning  mir- 
acle—  the  touchstone,  not  only  of  Lives  of  Jesus,  but  of 
Christianity  itself;"  and  who,  when  he  reaches  the  formal 
consideration  of  it  in  his  New  Life  of  Jesus,  says :  "  Here  we 
stand  on  that  decisive  point  where,  in  the  presence  of  tiie 
accounts  of  the  miraculous  resurrection  of  Jesus,  we  either 
acknowledge  the  inadmissibility  of  the  natural  and  historical 
view  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  conse(|Ueiitly  retract  all  that  pre- 
cedes, and  so  give  up  our  whole  uudertaking,  or  |)ledge  our- 
selves t(.  make  out  the  possibility  of  the  result  of  these 
accounts,  /.  c,  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  without  any  corresponding  miraculous  fact''  (i.  41;  397). 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  not  a 
reality,  all  the  other  miracles  would  be  valueless  even  if  real, 
and  all  effort  to  establish  their  n'ality  would  be  abandoned. 
This  is  admitted  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  says:  "  If  ( "hrist 
hatii    ii'it    bicii    raised,  then    is  our  preaching  vain,  your  faith 


ues- 
im- 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  117 

also  Ls  vain.  Yea,  and  we  are  lounil  i'nW-  wiunsses  of  God; 
because  we  witnessed  of  God  that  he  raised  uji  Christ,  whom 
he  raised  not  up,  if  so  be  that  the  deail  are  not  raised  ''  (1. 
Cor.  XV.  \4,  15).  The  reason  given  is  conclusive;  for  if  the 
Apostles  are  found  false  vvitnesses  concerning  the  main  fact 
of  which  they  testify,  we  can  not  credit  them  a^  to  anything 
else;  and  as  all  we  know  of  Jesus  comes  to  us  through  them, 
it  must  all  be  laid  aside  as  untrustworthy. 

From  these  concessions,  and  their  obvious  proprictv,  it  i^p- j^j!'',,  ^'j 
pears    that    in    discussing   the    question    of  New    Testament  ['///'^jj,.''-^' 
miracles  it  is  necessary  to  discuss  the   reality  of  only  one  offh^"fs*^^„',' 
them.     This  simplifies  the  inquiry,  and  it  should  lead  to  a  cou- 
centration  of  the  whole  discussion  on  this  single  point.     The 
conflict  between  belief  and  unbelief  is  thus  reduced  to  an  issue 
like  that  presented  by  the  challenge  of  Goliath:  '  Choose  you 
a  man  for  you,  and  let  him  come  down  to  me.     If  he  be  able 
to  fight  with  me  and  kill  me,  then  we  will  be  your  servants ; 
but  if  I  prevail  against  him.  and    kill   him,  then  shall  ye  be 
our  servants."     Let  us  settle  all  by  settling  the  (juestion,  Did 
Jesus  rise  from  the  dead  ?     This  in(juiry  is  .simj)lified  by  the 
admissions  of  unbelievers.     By  the  leading  skeptics  it  is  now|'|i>din- 
admitted,  first,  that    Jesus    actuallv    died    and    was    buried ;' '"'s*'?""^ 

'  '  "  'of  uiibe- 

sccond,  it  is  admitted  that  on  or  before  the  third  morning  his'''"^*'^ 
body  disappeared  from  the  tomb;  third,  that  the  disciples 
came  to  believe  firmly  that  he  arose  from  the  dead.-  The 
ex.ict  issue  has  reference  to  the  last  two  facts,  and  may  be 
stated  by  the  two  questions,  Did  the  body  disappear  by  a  res- 
surrection,  or  in  some  other  way?  and  Did  the  belief  of  the 
disciples  originate  from  the  fact  of  the   resurrection,  or  fronj 

'The  hypothesis   was  advanced  tlie  consciousness  of  the  disciples 

hy  Herder,  and  afterward  supported  that  we  have  any  knowledge  of  that 

by  Paulus  and  Scldeicnnacher,  that  which  was  the  object  of  their  faith  ; 

Jesiis  was  not  actually  dcail  when  and  thus  we  can  not  jro  farther  than 

he   was   placed    in   the   tomb,  and  to  say  that  by  wliatever  means  this 

that  he  revived  and  disappeareil ;  result  was  brought  about,  the  resur- 

bul  it  has  been  thoroughly  refute<i  rection  of  Jesus  became  a  fact  of 

by  Strauss    liiniself,  as  well   jus   by  tlieir  conscioiisuess,  an<l  was  as  real 

believing  writers     {Hee  New  Life  of  to  them  as  any  historical  event." 

Jesus,  i.  i|?  3,  4,  5.)  (Baur,  Church  Hhtori/,  i.  43.) 

'"  In  any  CAse  it  is  only  through 


118  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

some  other  cause?  In  seeking  to  answer  these  questions,  in- 
fidels have  adopted  as  their  line  of  argument,  first,  an  attack 
on  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses;  and  second,  the  propound- 
ing of  adverse  theories  as  to  the  disappearance  of  the  body, 
and  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection.  We  shall 
state  and  consider  the  chief  points  in  this  line  of  argument 
i)efore  we  present  the  l)ody  of  the  direct  evidence, 
whnesses  Before  considering  the  attack  on  tlie  witnesses,  it  is  neccs- 
',*,rrg^f(iQ*;^;  sary  that  we  distinctly  understand  who  the  witnesses  are  and 
where  their  testimony  is  to  be  found.  To  us  the  Avitnesses  are 
a  group  of  women,  not  less  than  five  in  number;  the  twelve 
(tlder  Apostles;  and  the  Apostle  Paul.  The  testimony  of  the 
women  and  of  the  twelve  is  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels,  in 
Acts,  in  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  John,  and  in  Revelation. 
That  of  Paul  is  found  in  Acts  and  his  Epistles.  Of  these 
documents  non(^  are  admitted  by  infidels  in  general  to  be 
genuine,  except  Revelation  and  four  of  Paul's  Epistles,  viz.: 
Romans,  Galatians,  and  I.  and  FI.  Corinthians.  But  while 
the  genuinen(!ss  pf  the  other  books  is  disputed,  it  is  admitted 
that  in  these  books  the  testimony  originally  given  by  the  wit- 
nesses to  the  resurrection  is  preserved.  We  stand  on  common 
ground,  then,  with  the  unbeliever  when  we  treat  the  testimony 
of  the  several  witnesses  which  we  find  in  these  books  as  that 
by  which  the  question  must  be  settled. 
ehaVge  "^'^^  ^^'^^  charge  against  the  witnesses  which  we  shall  con- 

thewit-    ■'^i^^cr  is  that,  apart  from  the  main  fact  of  the  resurrection,  they 
nesses.     ^ssert  some  things  which    are    incredible,  and   some  which  are 
impossible,  nnd  that  they  contradict  one  another,  thus  throw- 
ing discredit  on  their  testimony  to  the  main  fact, 
speciflca-         Xhe  most  i)r()minent  specification  of  thinjrs  incredible,  and 

tioii,  the  '1  o  ? 

M?Hra°     on«'  which  is  urged  by  all  recent  infidels,  is  the  account  given 

by  Matthew  of  the  guard  of  Roman  soldiers  set  to  prevent  the 

tiu-ac-      opening  of  the   tomb.      It  is  held  to  be   incredible   that  the 

crtlllit  . 

h<rM  to  be  priests,  as   represented   in   this  account,  remembered  the  pre- 

incnrli-         .      .  .  .  ~ 

I'''i'>       diction  by  Jesus  of  his  own   resurrection   on   the   third   day, 

four  liar-  -^  •'  ' 

Ucuhirs.  when  the  disciples  did  not;  incredible  that  Pilate,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  priests,  would  j^rant  a  guard;  incredible  that  the 
soldiers   reported    to  tlie   priests    rather  than   to   l*ilate,  their 


NKW     TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  119 

coinmander;  and  incredible  that,  at  the  risk  of  their  lives,  they 
admitted  lor  the  sake  of  money  that  they  had  been  asleep  on 
guard.'  In  reply  to  all  this  it  is  sufficient  to  observe,  first,  Reply 
that  the  soldiers  took  no  risk  at  all  in  saying  they  had  gone 
to  sleep;  when  their  statement  came  to  the  ears  of  Pilate,  the 
priests  had  only  to  tell  him  privately  that  the  soldiers  hud  not 
been  asleep  at  all,  but  had  said  this  at  their  instigation,  to  pre- 
vent him  from  proceeding  against  them.  Second,  Pilate, 
according  to  the  story  told,  had  put  the  soldiers  at  the  disposal 
of  the  priests,  and  to  these  it  was  their  duty  to  report  when 
the  special  service  for  which  they  had  been  detailed  was  accom- 
plished. Third,  Pilate  was  as  much  interested  in  preventing 
the  circulation  of  a  report  that  Jesus  had  arisen  as  were  the 
priests;  and  therefore  he  would  naturally  l)e  as  ready  to  grant 
a  guard  as  they  to  ask  for  it.  P'inally,  there  is  a  good  and 
sufficient  reason  why  the  chief  priests  should  remember  the 
prediction  of  the  resurrection,  and  speak  of  it  after  the  death 
of  Jesus;  and  why  the  disciples  should  not  think  of  it  at  all. 
The  reason  is  found  in  the  totally  different  views  of  that  pre- 
diction taken  by  the  two  parties  when  it  was  uttered.  The 
disciples  would  not,  and  could  not,  believe  that  Jesus  meant 
what  he  said  when  he  spoke  either  of  his  death  or  of  his 
resurrection.  They  construed  ids  repeated  remarks  on  the 
subject  as  a  dark  parable,  the  meaning  of  which  they  could 
not  even  conjecture."  When,  therefoie,  he  was  put  to  death, 
they  could  not  at  first  regard  this  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  first 
part  of  the  prediction,  and  consequently  th<  y  could  not  look 
forward  to  a  resurrection  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  second  part. 
On  the  contrary,  when  the  priests  and  ehlers  heard  that  he 
had  uttered  this  i)rediction  they  as  naturally  understood  it 
literally,  inasmuch  as  they  not  only  expected  him  to  die,  but 
intended  to  kill  him.  They  as  naturally  understood  him  to 
speak  literally  (»f  his  resurrection,  and  they  ex})ected  to  triumph 
over  his  disciples  by  his  failure  to  rise.  Thinking  now  that 
this  triumpij  was  certainly  within  their  reach,  if  only  the  body 
of  Jesus  could  be  kept  secure  till  the  three  days  should  pass, 
thev  had  every  reason  whicii  shrewd  and  cunning  men  could 
'  Sun.  I{,l  ,  iii.  444,  44.5.     =  >rnrk  ix.  10. 


\'20  CREDliJiLlTV    OF   tHt: 

liuve  under  such  circumstances  to  proceed  as  they  are  stiid  to 
have  done. 
Theac-  It  should  also  be  observed,  in  reference  to  this  matter  of 

count  of  ' 

ll^e^ard^iig  guard,  that  in  all  the  subsequent  controversy  between  the 
J'jjl*^^^'     Apostles   and    the  chief  priests   the   story   of  the  guard    was 
buftlcit-  never  denied,  as  it  certainly  would  have  been   if  it  had  been 
led**^'"""  false ;  that,  on    the  contrary,  it    was  tacitly  admitted  in  the 
very  report  which  tiie  priests  caused  to  be  spread  abroad,  that 
the  disciples   stole   the  body   away   while   the    soldiers   were 
asleep.     And  if  it  should  be  assumed  that  neither  this  report 
nor  the  story  of  the  guard  had  an  existence  until  the  publi- 
cation of  Matthew's  Gosp:'l,  still  the  ftict  remains  that  it  was 
pul)lished  in  the  Gospel  written  especially  for  Jewish   readers, 
and  that  after  its  publication  the  Jews  made  no  such  denial. 
Since  it  was  not  denied  at  the  time  when  men  knew  the  facts, 
it  is  too  late  to  deny  it  now.' 
specifica-         ^^  ^  second  .s>pcc'fication,  it  Is  lidd  to  be  incredible  that 
f'lfhireto  Mary  did  not  at  once  recognize  Jesus,  if  she  saw  him,  instead 
Jesus"'^^  of  supposing  him  to  be  the  gardener.^     But  it  is  answered, 
first,  that  her  own  statement,  that  she  did  not  recognize  him  at 
first,  is  proof  that  her  s^ory  was  not  made  up ;  for  surely  she 
would  not  have  made  it  up  this  way,  but  would  have  said,  "As 
soon  as  T  laid   my  eyes  on  him   I   knew  him."     Second,  her 
failure  to  at  once  recognize  him  is  naturally  accounted  for  by 
the  considerations    that  she  thought  he   was   still   dead,  that 
she  was  anxiously  inquiring    wiierc  his  dead  body   could    be 
found,  and   that  her  eyes  were  full   of  tears  when   she   first 
turned  toward  the  person  wlio  sj)()k('  to  iier. 

'  .Stnuiss  iittempts  to  explain  the  lie  assumed  it."  {Neir  Life,  i.  207.) 
origin  of  the  story  that  a  jruard  was  But  it  is  certain  that  if  such  a  con- 
placed  over  the  sepulcher,  in  the  versation  had  occurred,  it  would 
following  way :  "  In  the  disput*^  not  have  stopped  hero.  AVhert  the 
upon  this  point,  a  Jew  may  have  Chri.stian  said,  "You  had  certainly 
said :  No  wonder  that  the  sepulcher  set  a  watch  over  it,"  the  .Tew  would 
was  found  empty,  for  of  course  you  have  replied,  "  Now  you  are  lying; 
had  stolen  the  body  away.  'We  and  you  know  you  are  lying;"  and 
stolen  it  away,'  paid  the  Christian  ;  thus  the  story  would  have  been 
'how  could  we  have  done  that,  nipped  in  the  bud. 
when  you  had  certainly  set  a  watch  "  Sup.  Rri,  iii,  V^7,  4.58. 
over  it?'     lie  believed  this  because 


NEW    TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  121 

Under  the  head  of  things  impossible,  it  is  said  tliat  Jtisus^/^^jJ^.''i^*' 
could  not  have  vanished  as  he  is  said  to  have  done  frequently,  J",jj'JJf 
nor  have  entered  a  room  through  the  boards  of  closed  doors,  ments  ..f 
if  he  had  been  in  a  real  body.  But  these  two  tilings  can  be'^""^ 
declared  impossible  only  on  the  assumption  that  Jesus  pos- 
sessed no  supernatural  power;  for  if  he  had  .such  power, 
neither  was  impossible.  Both  of  the  infidel  writers  cited  in 
the  foot-note  below  unconsciously  provide  in  their  own 
words  this  answer  to  their  objection.  One  of  them  says,  if 
the  incidents  in  question  occurred,  "  there  could  be  n<>  ques- 
tion tliat  the  natural  corporeality  of  the  body  and  life  of  this 
human  being  was  of  a  very  peculiar,  perfectly  supernatural 
order ; "  while  the  other  says  of  the  entrance  into  the  room, 
"  Tt  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  intention  of  the  writer 
is  to  represent  a  miraculous  entry.'"  This  charge  is  in 
reality  based  on  the  assumption  that  Jesus  had  not  really 
risen  from  the  dead ;  for  if  he  had,  he  could  certainly  do  all 
that  is  .said  of  him;  and  the  objection  therefore  contains  a  fal- 
lacious a.ssumption  of  the  very  thing  to  be  proved.  In  other 
words,  it  is  an  attempt  to  discredit  the  proof  of  the  resurrec- 
tion by  assuming  that  the  resurrection  did  not  occur,  and  that 
therefore  the  witnes.ses  must  be  mi.staken.  Xo  fallacy  could 
be  more  inexcusable.  In  reality,  the  sudden  appearance  of 
Jesus  in  a  closed  room,  and  his  equally  sudden  disappearance 
without  passing  t!i rough  the  door,  are  no  more  wonderful 
than  the  omnipresence  of  God,  or  the  fact  that  he  sees  in  the 
darkness  as  well  as  in  the  light. 

'"Now  in  this  case,  if  the  eating  life  of  thi.s   human   l>ein;,'  was  of  a 

and  the  touching  were  historically  very  peculiar,  perfectly   snpcrnat- 

true,  it  could  not  be  doubtful  that  ural  order."     (Strauss,  Xeir  Lij'r,  \. 

what  appeared  to  the  disciples  was  407.  i     "If  Jesus  possessed  his  own 

a   human    body,    endowed    with  a  body    after   his    resurrection,   and 

natural  life   and  a   natural   body;  roidd  eat  and  be  handled,  he  could 

and   if  the  showing  and   feeling  of  not  vanish  ;  if  he  vanished  he  could 

the  marks  of  the  wouniis  were  .so,  not  have  been  thus  corporeal.    The 

there  couM  be  as  little  doubt  that  aid  of  a  miracle  has  to  be  invoked 

the  human   being   was  the   Jesus  in  order  to  reconcile  the  repre.son- 

who  died  on  the  cro.s8 ;  finally,  if  tations.     .     .     .     It  can  .scarcely  be 

the  entrance  with  closerl  doors  were  doubted  that  the  intention  of  tlie 

true,  there    could    be    no   qupstioii  writer  is  to  represent  a  miraculous 

that   the    natural    corporeality  and  entry."     tS'i//'.  />*</..  iii.  4<>"_',  4ti6. ) 


122  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

Second  file  sgcoikI   general   charge  against  the   witnesses  is  that 

th^wit-    *^^y  ^^^^^  incompetent.      This  charge  is  not  made  formally, 
nesses.      j^^j.  j^  involved,  as  will  be  seen,  in  certain  specifications, 
specifica-         First,  it  is  insisted  that  not  one  of  these  witnesses  actu- 

tion:  no  '  i  -r>        i  i  r  o 

one  saw  ^])y  ^^w  Jesns  comc  out  of  the  tomb.  J^y  the  author  ot  &u- 
urise.  pernatural  Religion  the  objection  is  stated  in  these  words : 
*'The  remarkable  fact  is,  therefore,  absolutely  undeniable, 
that  there  was  not,  and  it  is  not  pretended  that  there  was,  a 
single  eye-witness  of  the  actual  resurrection.'"  There  can 
be  no  reason  for  thus  insisting  on  this  fact,  unless  it  be  to 
show  that  the  witnesses  were  incompetent  for  want  of  oppor- 
tunity. But  in  this  direction  it  has  no  bearing  whatever;  for 
if  they  saw  him  alive  after  his  death,  this  is  proof  that  he 
came  to  life.  The  fact  that  no  one  claims  to  have  witnessed 
the  actual  resurrection  is  indeed  a  remarkable  fact,  remark- 
able as  proof  that  the  story  of  the  resurrection  was  not  made 
up  by  pretence;  for  if  it  bad  been,  the  witnesses,  or  at  least 
some  of  them,  would  almost  certainly  have  claimed  to  have 
seen  him  come  out  of  the  tomb,  especially  as  some  of  them 
claim  to  have  reached  the  tomb  very  nearly  at  the  time  of  his 
departure  from  it.  _  _ 

speciiica         \    sccond    specification    is    that    the    witnesses    were    de- 

tion.  the  I 

witnesses  rented,  and  therefore  mentally  incompetent.     This  objection 

*'''•  is  one  of  the  oldest  ever  employed  by  unbelievers,  and  it  has 

been  more  elaborately  svt  f(irth  in  modern  times  than  almost 

"e'lsus^^  any  other.  It  was  urged  by  Celsus,  the  first  known  writer 
against  tlu;  evidences  of  Christianity.  He  sneeringly  remarks 
concerning  the  evidence  of  the  resurrection,  that  the  wit- 
neases  were  "a  half  frantic  woman,"  and  some  one  else  who 
"  had  either  dreamed  so,  owing  to  a  peculiar  state  of  mind, 
or,  under  the  influence  of  a  wandering  imagination,  had  formed 
to  himself  an  aj)j)earance  according  to  his  wishes."'  ?icho- 
ing  the  sneer  of  the  ancient  Epicurean,  modern  infidels,  nota- 

hy  Re-      blv  Renan,  sav  that  Mary  of  Masrdala.  bccnuse  seven  demons 

nan;  •/  '        -  •'  " 

had  been  cast  out  oi  her,  was  a  womtin  of  unsound  mind,  and 
tliat    her   vision    of    Jesus    was   a    hallucination,'      As   to   the 

'  ///.  ni.  440  •' "  Divine  power  of  love!   pacred 

■  Oil /III  .\<i<ii,iM  CfihiiK.  li.  11.  c.  •").').    iiiniMcnts  111  wlii<'li  ilie  passion  of  a 


NKW    TKSTAMKNT    HOOKS.  123 

Other  wonu'U,  liaving  heard  M-ary's  storv,  they  were  seized 
with  the  hallucination  that  they  had  seen  a  young  man  in 
white  who  told  them  that  Jesus  had  risen.'  The  two  men  at 
Emmaus  fell  into  revery  as  a  stranger  who  had  journeyed 
with  them  was  breaking  bread  at  tiie  supper  tabk^ ;  the  stranger 
walked  away ;  they  recovered  from  their  revery,  and  con- 
cluded that  the  stranger  was  Jesus.^  Tlie  twelve,  shut  up  in 
a  room,  feel  a  light  breath  ])ass  over  them,  or  they  hear  a 
window  creak,  or  a  chance  murmur,  and  they  fancy  thut  the 
feeble  sound  is  the  voice  of  .lesus.  At  once  they  conclude 
that  Jesus  is  in  their  midst,  and  afterwards  it  was  pretended 
that  they  had  seen  his  wounds?'  If  we  accept  these  state- 
ments, we  must  certainly  conclude  that  the  women  and  the 
Twelve  were  demented  almost  to  idiocy. 

One  would  suppose  that  Paul,  with  his  sturdy  common  ^^^^'^ 
sense,  would  be  excepted  from  this  charge  of  hallucination  ;^^*'[|''' 
but  it  is  boldly  affirmed  that  at  the  time  of  his  supposed  con- 
versation witli  Jesus  a  sunstroke  or  an  attack  of  ophthalmia 
had  thrown  him  into  a  delirious  fever;  a  flash  of  lightning  <»i- 
a  peal  of  thunder  had  blinded  him,  and  for  the  time  being  he 
was  demented.^  It  has  also  been  affirmed  that  he  was  subject 
to  epilepsy,  with  a  view  to  making  it  appear  possible  that  he 
had  a  fit  at  the  time  that  he  thought  he  saw  Jesus."* 

While  this  charge  is  as  old  as   Celsus,  those  who  prefer  it,^[,'J.>^{"" 
have  to  this  day  made   no  attempt  at  i)roof  that  is  worthy  off.',7/,r^V'"* 
the  name.     There  are   only  two  ways  to    prove   that  a  man's 
testimony  as  to  an  object  of  sight  is  untrustworthy  i)ecause  of 
unsoundness  of  mind.      If,  in  the  first  place,  he  gave  evidence  fanurc^  ** 
of  insanity  either  before  or  after  the  event  to  which  he  testifies, 
his  testimony  may  be  ascribed  to  the  workings  of  a  disordered 
brain,   jn-ovided    fhiTe   is   in    it   jinythin;^-    highly    improbable. 

hallucinated    woman   jjives  to  the  (Jb.,  .ipoWA's,  GI.) 

worlil  a  resurrei'te<nio<l !"    I  Kenan,        Wb.,  ti'2. 

JfKiuf,  357).     "  If  wisdom  refuses  to       '  lb.,  60. 

fonsolo  tlii.s  poor  Imnian  race,  ho-       ■' 76..  67,  68. 

travel  hy  iate,  let  folly  attempt  tli«'        '  //'.,  172.  17:?. 

enter(»ri.se.     When- is  the  sa^'P  who        '•Strauss,   Xm    L\l'e,   i.   417;    Sup. 

has  given  to  the  world  as  much  joy  Uel,  lii.  .557-r)<iO. 

:is  fh(>  possessed  Mary  of  Ma^rdala?" 


]'24  CKKDIHITJTV    OF    'I'lli: 

But  in  the  case  of  these  witnesses  nothing  of  this  kind  is 
claimed  except  Mary's  possession,  M-hich  had  long  ago  passed 
away,  and  the  above  mentioned  charge  against  Paul,  which  is 
a  mere  fiction  of  the  imagination.  All  that  was  done  or  said 
by  any  of  the  witnesses  up  to  the  moment  of  seeing  Jesus,  and 
all  from  that  moment  onward,  is  perfectly  rational — it  is  that 
which  any  sane  person  under  the  same  circumstances  would 
do  and  say ;  and  the  only  ground  for  charging  them  with  in- 
sanity is  the  fact  that  they  claim  to  have  seen  Jesus.     But,  in 

ond^a*^  the  second  place,  one  may  be  pronounced  a  subject  of  halln- 
^^'  cination  without  previous  evidence  of  insanity  if  he  sees  some- 
thing which  is  known  by  others  present  not  to  be  a  reality,  or 
which  is  known  for  any  reason  to  be  impossible.  For  ex- 
ample, when  a  man  sees  snakes  crawling  on  his  bed,  and  feels 
them  twining  around  his  arms  and  his  neck,  while  others 
standing  at  his  hedside  can  see  nothing  of  the  kind,  it  is  known 
that  he  is  suffering  from  hallucination;  or  when  he  sees  hob- 
goblins grinning  at  him  through  the  ceiling  and  thrusting  at 
him  red-hot  irons,  he  is  known  to  be  hallucinated  because  of 
the  impossibility  of"  what  he  sees.  But  in  the  cases  of  the 
witnesses  to  the  re-urrection  neither  of  these  conditions  ex- 
isted. When  one  of  the  women  saw  Jesns,  all  saw  him  who 
were  present;  and  so  with  the  Twelve.  When  Paul  saw  him, 
his  companions  saw  the  miraculous  light  in  which  he  appeared, 
and  they  heard  the  voice  speaking  to  Paul,  though  they  heard 
not  the  words  that  were  spoken.  There  is  a  total  absence  in 
every  case  of  such  circumstances  as  give  evidence  of  hallucin- 

iieai         ation,  unless  it  be  the  assumed  imiiossihility  of  what  they  saw  : 

ground  of  ,     .  .  .  .  '  ,  •'  ... 

the  and  this  is  not  impossible  if  there  is  a  God  ;  for  it  is  certainly 

charg".  _  *  '  •' 

not  impossible  that  God  should  raise  the  dead,  and  especially 
such  a  dead  man  as  Jesus.  It  appears,  then,  that  the  only 
ground  for  the  charge  of  hallucination  is  the  mere  fact  that 
these  witnesses  claim  to  have  seen  Jesus.  If  such  a  mode  of 
reasoning  were  employed  in  the  investigation  of  any  other 
event,  those  who  employ  it,  and  not  the  witnesses  to  the  event, 
w«>uld  b(!  pronounced  of  unsound  mind. 

The  third  and   last  charge  against  the  witnesses  which  we 
shall   consider  is  the  charge  that  thcyContradict  one  another. 


NKW    TKSTAMKM     liOOKS.  i'2~) 

If  this  were  true,  and  the  eoiitradietions  had  a  bearing  on  tlie  J^jJ^^ 
main  fact  of  the  resurrection,  Jsonie  of  the  witnesses  making  Jj^^\*i™^'j. 
statements  inconsistent  with   this   main   fact,  tiiere  woukl  be  {^hg'^^f/.' 
force  in  the  objection;  and  we  woukl  be  left,  as  in  other  cases "*'"^^*^'''' 
of  conflicting  testimony,  to  the  necessity  of  deciding  between 
the  witnesses  by  tlie  preponderance  of  evidence.     But  it  is  not '(,**'•-' 

•'II  charge 

claimed,  nor  is  it  true,  that  the  alleged  contradictious  take  thisfg^J"[|,"p 
form.      It  is  only  subordinate  and  unessential  details  that  9re^^y,\*^,n"'„'; 
affected  by  tlicm.     Such   contradictions  could   exist  in    large  "'"'*''' 
numbers,  as  they  often  do   in   the  testimony  of  credible  wit- 
nesses in  courts  of  justice,  without  invalidating  the  evidence 
as  to  the  main  fact.     Infidels  themselves  admit  this  in  regard 
to  the   evidence  of  the  crucifixion   of  Jesus;  for  while  they 
claim  that  John   contradicts  the   other  Evangelists  in  respect 
to  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion,  yet  not  one  of  them  on  this 
account   doubts   the   reality   of  the   crucifixion   itself.     So  it 
shouKl   be   in    respect   to   the   resurrection;    they   should   not 
allow  similar  contradictions  about  details  to  make  them  doubt 
the  united  and   harmonious  testimony  as  to  the  resurrection 
itself. 

But  is  it  true  that  the  witnesses  contradict  one  another  ?f'pn|r«- 

diction 

This  can  be  determined  only  by  examining  closely  the  specifi- ^^^^'led 
cations  under  this  charge,  bearing  in  mind  while  we  do  so  that 
a  contradiction,  as  we  have  said  before  (page  31),  can  not  be 
justly  cliarged  except  when  two  statements  are  made  wliich 
can  not  both  be  true  ;  that  if,  on  any  rational  hypothesis,  they 
both  can  be  supposed  true,  they  both  mat/  be  true,  and  no 
contradiction  is  made  out.  This  rule  is  made  necessary  by  the 
fact  that  writers  and  sj^eakers  often  omit  details,  the  absence 
of  which  give  tlu-ir  statements  the  appearance  of  inconsistency, 
whereas  their  presence  in  the  narrative  would  have  prevented 
this  a])pearance.  It  is  unjust  to  refuse  any  writers  the  benefit 
of  this  rule  ;  for  in  doing  so  we  are  liable  to  charge  with  false- 
hood the  most  truthful  writers,  and  with  incorrect  infomation 
those  best  informed. 

The  first  specification  to  be  noticed  under  this  head  has  ref-  .5p,,pifi,.a. 
erence  t(»  the  time  at  which  the  women  went  to  the  >c|>uleher.  ,'{^y,{,«*i 
Matthew  says  they  came  "  as  it   began  to  d;iwn  :"  an<l   -b^hn. 'p'^'^nJ"" 


]-2H  CREDiBiLrrv  OF    riii: 

tothesep-«  ^y}li]^.  j^  ^vas  vct  dark,-'  as  it  ahva5'S  is  when  it  begins  to 
(lawn.  In  apparent  conflict  with  this,  ^lark  says  they  came 
*'  when  the  sun  was  risen."  Now  if  the  word  *  came  "  {i(f)(^ojj.ac) 
used  by  all  of  these  writers  is  employed  here  in  the  sense  of 
arriving,  which  is  its  usual  meaning,  there  is  a  contradiction 
of  Matthew  and  John  by  Mark.  But  this  word  is  sometimes 
used  in  reference  to  starting  instead  of  arriving,  and  examples 
of  this  use  are  found  elsewhere  in  the  writings  of  both 
Matthew  and  John.  A  notable  instance  is  the  statement  (Matt. 
xiv.  12)  that  the  disciples  of  John  "came  and  took  up  the 
corpse  and  buried  him;  and  they  went  and  told  Jesus;'*'  where 
the  word  occurs  twice,  once  rendered  "came,"  and  once  "  went," 
the  former  referring  to  their  arrival  where  the  corpse  was,  and 
the  latter  to  their  starting  for  Galilee  to  tell  Jesus.  Tn  John 
(vi.  17)  we  find  this  instance:  "They  entered  into  a  boat,  and 
were  going  over  the  sea  to  Capernaum ;"  where  the  word  in 
question  is  rendered  "  were  going,"  with  reference  to  their 
start  and  progress,  and  with  no  reference  at  all  to  their  arrival. 
In  the  case  in  hand  we  have  only  to  suppose  that  these  two 
writers  have  their  minds  on  the  time  when  the  women  started 
to  the  sepulcher  in  order,  according  to  their  own  iisa^e  else- 
where, to  see  that  they  do  not  contradict  Mark ;  and  at  the 
same  time  it  is  not  till  we  do  this  that  we  exactly  understand 
their  meaning.  That  Mark,  on  the  other  hand,  refers  to  the 
arrival  at  the  tomb  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  in  the  preceding 
clause  he  mentions  the  purchase  of  spices  by  the  women  while 
on  the  way  :  "  And  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magda- 
lene, and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  bought 
spices,  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.  And  very  early 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week  they  came  to  the  tomb  when  the 
sun  was  risen." 
Speritica  Sccoud,  a  contradiction  is  charged  in  reference  to  the  names 
the  worn  of  these  women.     The  most  casual  reader  of  the  Gospels  has 

611  WGrc 

observed  that  there  is  a  difference  on  this  point.  Tviike  says 
that  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  Joanna,  and 
"other  women'*  went;  Mark,  that  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary 
the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome  went;  Matthew,  that  Mary 
Magdalone,  and  Afary  the  mother  of  Jani^s  and  Josfph  went; 


NKW    TESTA MKNT    1500K.S.  127 

and  John,  that  Mary  Magdaleue  went.  Now  if  either  Mark, 
Matthew  or  John  had  said  that  only  th(Kse  whom  he  mentions 
went,  they  would  all  iiave  contradicted  Luke ;  if  Matthew  had 
said  that  the  two  whom  he  mentions  were  all  who  went,  he 
would  have  contradicted  both  Luke  and  Mark;  and  if  John 
had  said  that  the  one  whom  he  mentions  was  the  only  one  who 
went,  he  would  have  contradicted  all  three  of  the  other 
writers;  hut  not  one  of  them  speaks  thus.  No  exclusive  term 
is  used.  If  all  these  women  went,  then  all  these  writers  tell 
the  truth.  The  only  fair  and  just  way,  therefore,  to  deal  with 
the  several  statements  is  to  suppose  that  all  of  the  women 
mentioned  went,  and  that  each  writer,  for  reasons  which  we 
may  or  may  not  discover,  chose  to  speak  of  them  as  he  does. 
An  omission  is  not  a  contradiction. 

A  third  specification  has  reference  to  the  number  of  an  eels  ^.p^^'^^^- 

^  o         Hon:  the 

said  to  have  been  seen  bv  the  women  at  the  tomb."     Matthew  °?™^^'', 

•'  of  anjrcls 

mentions  tlie  one  who  rolled  the  stone  away,  and  represents  lepu)'. 
him  as  speaking  to  the  women,  while  Luke  says  there  were*^''®'"" 
two  angels,  and  John  also  says  that  two  were  seen  by  Mary 
Magdalene.  This  case  is  precisely  like  that  of  the  number  of 
women.  Matthew  having  mentioned  the  one  who  rolled  away 
the  stone,  and  who  was  the  speaker,  sees  fit  to  say  nothing 
about  the  other;  while  Luke  and  .John,  not  having  mentioned 
the  removal  of  the  stone,  see  fit  to  speak  of  both  the  angels 
without  di-tinguishing  the  one  who  did  the  sj)eaking.  It  is 
an  every  day  occurrence  to  speak  of  having  met  a  friend  and 
had  a  conversation  with  him,  without  mentioning  another 
friend  who  was  present  at  the  time  ;  and  yet,  in  referring  again 
to  the  san)e  incident,  to  speak  of  Jiaving  met  both. 

Fourth,  a  contradiction  is  charged  in  reference  to  the  con-'^pecificH 

.  lion:  con 

duct    of  tiic    women    immediatelv    after   they    left    the    tomb,  fli'ctof 

•^  the  worn 

'  Celsus  8tate<l  this  objection  in  sepuloher;  wliile  they  who  mention 

these  words:  "  I^  is  related  also  that  two  refer  to  those  who  appeared  in 

there  came  to   the  tomV)  of  Jesus  shining  raiment  to  the  women  who 

himself,   according    to    some,   two  repaired  fo  the  sepnlcher,  or  who 

angols;  according  to  others,  one."  were  st'on  within  sitting  in  white 

Oripen  replies :  "They   who    men-  garments."     (Origen  ngainxt  CeUns, 

tion  one  say  that   it  was  he  who  hook  v.  chap.  56.) 
rolled    awiiv    tlic    stone     from     thf 


128  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

theyM°  Matthew  says  that  they  were  told  by  the  angel  to  go  and  tell 
the  tomb,  ^-j^g  male  disciples  that  Jesus  had  arisen  and  would  meet  lliern 
in  Galilee.  Luke  says  tliat  tliey  delivered  this  message,  whih; 
Mark  says  that  "they  fled  from  the  tomb;  for  trembling  and 
-  astonishment  had  come  upon  them;  and  they  said  nothing  to 
any  one,  for  they  were  afraid."  Whether  this  is  a  contradiction 
depends  on  the  meaning  of  Mark.  If  he  means  that  they  said 
nothing  even  to  the  male  disciples,  there  is  a  contradiction; 
but  if  he  means  that  they  said  nothing  to  any  except  those  to 
whom  tiiey  were  told  to  speak,  there  is  none.  The  latter  is 
the  natural  meaning  of  his  words,  for  they  stand  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  angel's  command  to  go  and  tell  the  dis- 
ciples; and  the  fear  which  is  mentioned  as  the  cause  of  their 
not  telling  could  not  be  a  motive  for  not  telling  them,  but  only 
for  not  telling  other  men  who  might  be  enemies.  In  other 
words,  their  fear  could  not  have  been  a  motive  for  disobeying 
the  angel;  on  the  contrary,  the  greater  their  alarm,  the  greater 
their  natural  impulse  to  tell  their  brethren  what  they  had 
seen  and  heard, 
spewiica-  Fifth,  it  is  charged  that  the  writers  contradict  one  another 
the^flrst  concerning  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  male  disciples, 
ance  oV  Matthew  mentions  first,  that  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee ;  Mark 
the'Ivpos-  and  John,  that  in  Jerusalem  on  the  night  after  the  resurrec- 
tion;  Luke,  that  to  Cleopas  and  his  companion  on  their  wav 
to  Emmaus;  Paul,  that  to  Peter  alone  (I  Cor.  xv.  5);  and 
this  variation  is  the  alleged  contradiction,'  These  statements 
would  be  contradictory  if  the  several  writers  had  said  that 
the  appearance  which  they  mention  first  was  first  in  order  of 
time;  but  not  one  of  them  makes  such  a  statement,  though 
Paul  says  that  the  appearance  to  Peter  preceded  that  to  the 
Twelve.  The  variation  is  fully  acccounted  for  if  we  suppose 
that  all  tliese  a|)])('arances  took  place,  and  that  each  writer 
made  his  own  ^selection  of  those  which  he  chose  to  mention, 
and  intentionally  omitted  the  others.  The  omission  is  not 
readily  accounted  for,  though  there  is  a  reason  for  it  yet  to  b(^ 
mentioned;  but  whether  accounted  for  or  not,  it  involves  no 
inconsistency. 

S>ii>.  A',/.,  iii.  4.-) I,  -!.•)«<,  489. 


NEW     Tl-ISTAMEM"    IK)<)KS.  129 

Sixth,  it  is  alleged  that  Luke  represents  Jesus,  at  his  first  fP^'^.^^g*- 
interview  with  the  apostles,  as  commanding  them   to  remain  fn'^Gaiif 
ill    Jerusalem,  tlius   contradicting   Matthew    and    John,  who^®^' 
hoth  represent  him  as  meeting  them  in  Galileo.      The  truth  of 
t!iis  charge  depends  on  the  question  whether  the  whole  of  the 
conversation  in  the  last  chapter  of  Luke  (36-49),  occurred  at 
the    first   interview   with  the  apostles.     If  it    did,  then  the 
command  (verse  49)  to  tarry   in   Jerusalem  was  given,  as  is 
alleged,  at   this    first    interview.     It    must  be   admitted  that, 
with  Luke's  Gospel  alone  before  us,  we  would  thus  conclude; 
but  this  would  not  be  a  necessary  conclusion,  for  it  is  the  well  this  uot 

'  contra- 

known   habit  of  the  Gospel   writers    to   often    pass  from    <>ne  j'^^^^*^  ^y 

incident  to  another  widely  sepnrated  from  it,  without  a  note  of 
time.  For  example,  in  the  niidst  of  his  account  of  the  last 
supper,  Luke  introduces,  without  a  note  of  time,  tlie  state- 
ment, "And  there  arose  also  a  contention  among  them,  which 
of  them  is  accounted  to  be  the  greatest;"  whereas  this  con- 
tention had  arisen  among  them  several  months  previous,  as 
we  learn  both  from  Luke  himself  and  from  Matthew/ 
Again,  the  conversation  with  certain  of  his  disciples  about 
following  him  is  mentioned  by  Luke  directly  after  that  about 
the  Samariinn  village  whose  inhabitants  would  not  receive 
him,  and  it  is  introduced  by  tiie  words,  "And  as  they  went  in 
the  wav  ;  "  yet  it  really  occurred  while  they  were  yet  in  Galilee, 
and  as  thov  were  about  to  take  a  boat  for  the  eastern  side  of 
the  lake.-  Witii  this  knowledge  of  the  writer's  habit,  one 
could  not  be  sure  that  the  conversation  in  question,  begin- 
ning "and  he  said  to  them"  (verse  44),  followed  in  j)oint  of 
time  immediately  upon  the  preceding  ;  and  consequently  the 
charge  of  contradiction  could  not  l)e  made  out,  though  it 
would  liavv^  more  plausibility  in  this  instance  than  in  any  of 
the  precediuiT.  When,  however,  we  turn  to  I^uke's  second  b"tiiis 
narrative,  and  allow  him  to  exjjlain  himself,  as  he  did  to«^^.^^^j 
Theophilus,  his  meaning  is  left  without  uncertainty,  and '" '^<"**'- 
the  appearance  of  contradiction  vanishes.  In  his  introduc- 
tion  to   Acts,  as  if  for   the   very   purpose  of  making  clearer 

'  Luke  xxii.  L'4;  ci.  ix.  40;  Matt.  Luke    ix.   .•)l-(i2;    cf.   Matt.  viii. 

xviii.  \.  18-2:{. 


130  CRKDIHILITY    OF    TIIK 

his  conck'iistd  account  in  the  close  of  his  Gospel,  lie  tells 
Theophilus  that  there  was  an  interval  of  forty  days  between 
the  first  interview  with  the  eleven  and  the  one  in  which 
he  gave  thera  their  last  instruction  and  ascended  to  heaven 
(i.  1-9). 
Specified         -phe  seventh  and  last  specification  which  we  shall  consider 

tion:  tni'  i 

oTforfv  ii»der  this  charge  is  based  on  the  passage  in  Acts  last  cited. 
^^^'^-  It  is  charged  that  the  statement  about  the  interval  of  forty 
days  is  a  contradiction  of  the  preceding  narrative,  and  that  it 
is  adopted  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  different  appear- 
ances of  Jesus.'  It  is  difficult  to  have  patience  with  critics 
who  thus  refuse  to  allow  the  later  and  fuller  statements  of  a 
writer  to  modify  and  explain  his  earlier  and  more  concise 
narrative,  without  the  charge  of  fraudulent  design.  The 
author  of  these  two  narratives  certainly  had  no  thought  that 
his  friend  Theophilus  was  in  danger  of  seeing  a  contradiction 
between  the  two  accounts,  or  he  would  have  made  some  effort 
to  guard  against  such  a  construction ;  and  if  he  had  the 
intention  of  deceiving,  he  would  most  certninly  have  made 
such  an  effort.  The  absence  of  the  faintest  trace  of  such  an 
effort  is  proof  sufficient  that  the' jjK>ed  of  it  was  not  felt,  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  the  writer  was  conscious  of  that  candid 
truthfulness  which  casts  aside  all  thought  of  guarding  against 
siLspicion,  If  a  writer  of  the  present  day  were  1o  publish  an 
Mf'count  of  having  visited  a  certain  friend  at  a  certain  date, 
and  in  connection  with  it  were  to  repeat  some  conversation 
witii  that  friend;  and  in  a  subsequent  publication  were  to  say 
that  the  visit  lasted  forty  days,  and  that  the  conversation 
re])orted  was  separated  by  this  interval,  no  sane  man  would 
think  of  charging  him  with  contradicting  himself;  yet  this  is 
precisely  the  case  before  us. 
Mon^^R.ito  ^^^'  *^^^'^'  ""^^'  t'xp''»i"^'t^  idl  the  alleged  contradictions  in 
oonua-^'^  the  several  accounts  of  the  resurrection  which  we  consider 
fiictioii  xvorthy  of  notice,  and  we  find  that  the  charge  is  not  sustained 
Ity  a  single  specification.  We  may  therefore  .safely  dismii^s  the 
eharge,  and  at  the  same  time  di.smi.s.s  from  our  minds  all  thought 
of  having:  to  ajwlogizc,  as  some  believers  seem  icadv  (n  do,  fin- 
'  SfraiisK,   \r,r   I,[fr,  i.40.'5;  Hcnan,  Aixtxilt'x,  L'U. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  131 

immaterial  discrepancies.  No  discrepancies  either  material  or 
immaterial  have  been  discovered  in  these  acconnts  afier  a 
search  which  began  eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  has  continued 
with  little  interruption  to  the  present  titne. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE   RESURRECTION   OF  JESUS:     ADVERSE  THEORIES 
CONSIDERED. 

Thedis-  When   admitted   facts  are  to  be  accounted  for,  there  may 

appear-  ,  x*         i        i." 

anceof     be  one  of  three  cases:     First,  no  adequate  cause  tor  the  tact 

the  body  '  .  i    •       j 

to  be  ex-  j^^v  be  knovvn  :  in  this  instance  the  fact  remains  unexplained  as 

plained  •'  i       i  •   i 

threr"'  to  its  cause.  Second,  two  or  more  causes  may  be  known,  cither 
ways.  Qf  ^yhici,  \^  adequate  to  account  for  the  effect :  in  this  instance 
there  is  a  (pu'stion  of  probability  as  to  which  of  these  is  the 
real  cause.  Third,  one,  and  only  one,  adequate  cause  may  be 
known:  in  this  instance  the  fact  "must  be  explained  by  that 
cause.  In  the  inquiry  concerning  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
there  are,  as  we  have  previously  stated,  two  admitted  facts 
having  imi)i)rtant  bearing  on  the  main  question :  first,  that  the 
dead  body  of  Jesus  disappeared  from  the  tomb  on  or  before 
the  third  morning;  second,  that  the  disciples  came  to  believe 
that  it  disappeared  by  rising  from  the  dead.  These  two  facts 
are  readily  accounted  for  if  Jesus  actually  arose;  but  if  they 
can  be  accounted  for  on  some  other  rational  hypothesis,  then 
the  question  is  one  of  probability  between  that  hypothesis 
and  the  resurrection.  Again,  if  they  can  be  accounted  for  on 
no  other  such  hypothesis,  we  are  logically  shut  up  to  the 
resurrection  as  the  only  adequate  cause.  Such  hypotheses 
have  been  advanced  by  unbelievers,  and  we  shall  now  give 
them  careful  consideration. 
Avoid  1.  Very  few  infidel  writers  have  seriously  grai)pled  with 

(Uice  of  •'  •  1  rn  1 

this qius- the  question,  how  the  body  of  Jesus  disappeared.      They  have 

unbeiiev-  doubtless  avoided  it  because  they  had  no   hypothesis  on  which 

they  were  willing  to  take  a  stand.      Christian   Baur,  realizing 

his  inabilitv  in  thi>   parti<'iil;ii-,  ■-lots  the  question  aside  by  the 


XKW    rKSTANrEXT    BOOKS.  133 

following  very  remarkable  statement  ;**The  question  as  to  the 
nut  lire  and  reality  of  the  resurrection  lies  outside  the  sphere 
of  historical  investigation."'  This  is  remarkable,  because  it 
places  outside  the  sphere  of  historical  investigation  the  most 
momentous  even  in  history,  if  it  is  an  event ;  and  it  is  the 
more  rem  irkable  in  tiiat  it  is  made  in  a  history  of  the  Clmrch. 
It  leaves  outside  of  church  history  an  inquiry  into  the  very  fact 
on  which  the  existence  of  the  Church  depends.  It  is  like  a 
history  of  the  United  States  which  leaves  out  of  consideration 
the  reality  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  or  a  treatise  on 
the  solar  system  which  treats  the  reality  of  the  sun's  existence 
as  an  outside  question.  Baur  could  not  have  chosen  a  more 
empliatic  method  of  declaring  his  dissatisfaction  with  the 
theories  on  this  subject  propounded  by  some  of  his  fellow 
infidels. 

Renan.  more   courageous  than   discreet,  takes  issue   with  ^,!'^*"'? 

^  '  attempt 

Baur.  and  makes  a  bold  attempt  to  account  for  the  removal  to*"swor 
of  the  body.  He  formally  raises  the  question,  "  In  what 
place  did  the  worms  consume  the  lifeless  corpse,  which,  on  the 
Friday  evening,  had  been  deposited  in  the  sepulcher?"  He 
proceeds  to  answer  as  follows :  "  It  is  possible  that  the  body 
was  taken  away  by  some  of  the  disciples,  and  by  them  carried 
into  Gililee.  The  others,  remaining  at  Jerusalem,  would  not 
be  cognizant  of  the  fact.  On  the  other  hand,  the  disciples 
who  carried  the  body  into  Galilee  could  not  have  as  yet 
become  acquainted  with  the  stories  which  were  invented   at 

'  "The  question  as  to  the  nature  (Baur,  Church  History,  i.  4L').  Strau.><s, 
and  the  reality  0^  the  resurrection  dissatisfied  with  this  .strange  po-i- 
lies  outside  the  sphere  of  historical  tion  of  his  fellow  unbeliever,  niakfs 
imniiry.  History  must  be  content  the  following  comment :  "  But  t-vtMi 
with  the  simple  fact  that  in  the  B.iur  himself  has  vmiclisafed  to  de- 
faith  of  the  disciples  the  resnrrec-  flare  that  the  n-il  nature  of  tlir 
tion  of  Jesus  came  to  be  regarded  resurrection  of  Jesus  lies  outside 
as  a  solid  and  unquestionable  faet.  the  limitsof  hist-jrical  investigation, 
It  was  in  this  faith  that  Christianity  and  has  accordingly,  at  least  in 
acquired  a  firm  basis  for  its  histor-  words,  avoided  the  burning  ques- 
ical  development.  What  history  lion."  (.Veio  Li/V,  i. 398.)  YetPtrauss 
requires  as  the  necessary  antere-  himself  also  avoidg  "  the  burning 
dent  of  all  that  is  to  follow  is  not  question,"  at  least  so  far  as  not  to 
.so  much  the  fa<t  of  the  resurrection,  uttem|)t  to  say  wiiat  became  of  the 
as  the   belief   that  it  was  a  fact."  dead  bodv. 


134 


CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 


Indecis- 
iveness 
of  his 
answer. 


His  three 
supposi- 
tions 1111- 

t'TIMbll'. 


Jerusalem,  so  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  would  have 
been  propounded  in  their  absence,  and  would  have  surprised 
them  accordingly.  They  could  not  have  protested;  and  had 
they  done  so,  nothing  would  have  been  disarranged."  "  It  is 
also  permissible  to  suppose  that  the  disappearance  of  the 
body  was  the  work  of  the  Jews.  Perhaps  they  thouglit  that 
in  this  way  they  would  prevent  the  scenes  of  tumult  which 
might  be  enacted  over  the  corpse  of  a  man  so  popular  as 
Jesus.  Perhaps  they  wanted  to  prevent  any  noisy  funeral 
ceremonies,  or  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  this  just  man," 
"  Lastly,  who  knows  that  the  disappearance  of  the  body  was 
not  effected  by  the  proprietor  of  the  garden,  or  by  the  garden- 
<  r?  This  proprietor,  as  it  would  seem  from  such  evidence  as 
wc  possess,  was  a  stranger  to  the  sect.  They  chose  his  cave 
because  it  was  nearest  to  Golgotha,  and  because  tliey  were 
pressed  for  time.  Perhaps  he  was  dissatisfied  with  this  mode 
of  taking  possession  of  his  property,  and  caused  the  corpse  to 
be  removed."' 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  ingenious  author,  although  he 
suggests  three  ways  in  which  he  thinks  it  possible  that  the 
body  may  have  been  removed,  does  not  make  choice  between 
them,  nor  does  he  state  either  with  any  confidence.  He  intro- 
duces one  with  the  words,  "It  is  possible;"  another  with  "It 
is  permissible  to  suppose  ;"  and  the  third  with  "Who  knows?" 
He  also  makes  free  use  of  the  term  "  perhaps."  All  this  shows 
conscious  weakness  and  uncertainty ;  and  when  we  come  to 
consider  tlie  three  suppositious,  we  shall  see  that  he  had  good 
rause  for  so  speaking. 

The  supposition  that  the  disciples  from  Cialilee  carried  the 
i)ody  with  them  is  preposterous,  for  want  of  an  adequate  motive 
fi)r  so  difficult  an  undertaking.  The  transportation  of  a  dead 
body  in  the  warm  season  of  that  warm  climate  to  a  distance 
of  not  less  than  sixty  miles,  with  no  facilities  except  a  comnion 
bier  borne  on  the  shoulders  of  men,  is  an  undertaking  not  to 
be  thought  of  except  under  extreme  necessity,  and  no  such 
necessity  existed.  But  if  it  had  been  thus  transported  it  is 
still  more  absurd  to  assume  that  the  story  of  its  resurrection 
'  Uriiitn.  .  1/».m//,'.<.  7«-Sn. 


XEW    TESTAMENT    HooKS.  Hio 

would  not  have  been  contradicted  by  those  who  buried  it  in 
Galilee,  or  that  a  remonstrance  from  them  would  have  had  n<) 
effect.  And  even  should  both  these  suppositious  be  accepted 
as  within  the  bounds  of  probability,  still  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  the  disciples  to  carry  the  body  through  the 
country  and  bury  it  in  Galilee  without  the  cognizance  of  un- 
believing Jews  or  Samaritans  along  the  way,,  and  thov  would 
have  borne  witness  to  the  fact.  The  second  supposition  is  not 
"permissible,"  for  two  reasons:  first,  the  motive  assigned 
could  not  have  prompted  the  act,  inasmuch  as  it  would  not 
have  prevented  either  fuueral  ceremonies,  if  any  had  been 
desired,  or  the  erection  of  a  monument;  second,  if  the  Jews 
had  disposed  of  the  body  they  would  certainly  have  produced 
it  when  the  story  of  a  resurrection  became  current;  or,  if  the 
body  had  by  this  time  been  too  much  decomposed,  they  would 
have  presented  evidence  that  it  had  been  disposed  of  in  this 
way.  This  would  have  been  a  far  more  eflPective  method  of 
silencing  the  Apostles  than  to  threaten  them  with  death,  and 
to  scourge  them,  as  was  done  afterward  for  "preaching, 
through   Jesus,  the   resurrection   of  the   dead."  '     The  third 

'See  Acts  of  Apostles,  iv.  1,  2.  far  from  being  so  obvious  a  thing  to 
lM  ;  V.  17,  40.  Strauss,  in  attempt-  do  as  we  may  at  tliisday  imagine." 
ing  to  reply  to  this  argument,  after  {Xeiu  Life,  i.  432).  The  author  of 
saying  that  the  Apo.stlos  kept  quiet  Sujiernatural  Religion  follows  in  a 
till  Pentecost,  about  seven  weeks,  similar  strain,  but  neither  of  them 
and  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  meets  the  point  made  above,  that 
Jesus  was  actually  laid  in  Jo.seph's  even  if  the  body  had  been  too  much 
tomb,  proceeds  to  say  :  "  But  if  decayed  for  identification,  compe- 
Jesus  wa.s.  as  is  probable,  buried  tent  evidence  as  to  what  was  done 
with  the  other  condemned  crimi-  with  it  l)y  the  soldiers  of  Pilate 
nals  in  a  disiionorable  place,  his  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  preiich- 
ilisciples  had  not  from  the  first  the  ing;  and  that  such  evidence  was 
tempting  opportunity  of  looking  for  not  even  thouirht  of  by  the  chief 
his  body.  And  if  sometime  elapsed  ])riests.  Moreover,  both  these  writ- 
l)efore  they  came  forward  i)roclaim-  rrs,  in  common  with  all  on  their 
ing  his  resurrection,  it  must  have  side,  find  it  very  convenient  ju.st 
been  more  difficult  for  their  op-  here,  as  at  other  points  in  the  dis- 
ponents fd.so  to  produce  his  corpse  ciission,  to  ignore  tlie  fact  that  the 
in  a  contlifion  stiU  to  be  reroirnized  soldiers  did  give  explicit  testimonv 
or  affording  any  proof.  Moreover,  to  the  priests,  which  airreed  with 
when  we  remember  the  horror  for  that  of  the  ;i|.r)stl(«s. 
doa^  bodies  felt  by  the  Jews  it  w:is 


136  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

hypothesis  is  equally  uureasonable  with  the  others;  for  if  the 

garden  did  not  really  belong  to  Joseph,  he  certainly  had  the 

right  of  access  through  it  to  his  own   sepulcher;  and  if  the 

gardener  had   removed   the  body  he  would   have   been  very 

glad  to  give  it  up  to  Mary  when  she  was  seeking  for  it.     The 

dead   body   of  a  stranger,  and  especially  that  of  a  crucified 

criminal,  is  a  piece  of  property  of  which  men  are  very  glad  to 

be    relieved.     Finally,   all    three    of   these    suppositions   are 

proved   to    be   absurd,  from   the  fact  that  the   sepulcher  was 

guarded  by  Roman  soldiers  for  the  very  purpose  of  preventing 

any  such  removal  of  the  body.     At  this  point  we  can  see  more 

clearly  than  before  why  unbelievers  feel  compelled  to  deny 

the  placing  of  that  guard.     It  is  not  because  there  is  anything 

improbable    in    it,  but    because    the    presence    of  the    guard 

renders  it  incredible   that  the   body  disappeared    in  any  way 

compatible   with   the   theories   of  unbelief     To   deny   a   fact 

which  is  reasonably  well  attested  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 

get  it  out  of  the  way  of  a  theory,  is  convincing  proof  that  the 

theory  is  false. 

Thebe  2.   While    fcw    infidels    have     made    serious    attempts    to 

lief  lu  the  «    i       i      i        /•   t  i 

■■es'Jrrec-^  account  for  the  disappearance  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  many  have 
hruuci"^  tried  to  account  for  the  other  admitted  fact,  the  belief  of  the 
nation.  (Jij^ciples  that  he  arose  from  the  dead.  The  theory  tiiat  all 
the  witne&ses  labored  under  a  hallucination  has  already  been 
examined,  and  found  to  be  without  the  slightest  ground  of 
evidence.  As  a  cau.se  of  the  belief  in  (juestion  it  would  be 
inadcjquate  even  if  it  were  a  fact.  Men  and  women  who  are 
hallucinated  firmly  believe  that  what  they  see  ami  hear  in  this 
state  of  mind  is  real  while  the  hallucination  continues,  but  as 
soon  as  it  pa.sses  away  the  belief  pas.ses  away  with  it.  No  sane 
man,  for  instance,  continues  after  waking  to  believe  in  the 
reality  of  what  he  .saw  in  his  dreams;  and  no  man  who  has 
.suffered  from  delirium  tremens  i)elieves,  after  his  delirium  has 
passed,  that  the  .serpents  and  hobgoblins  which  he  saw  were 
realities.  It  is  contrary  to-  the  experience  of  hallucinated 
persons,  therefore,  that  the  disciples,  if  they  were  in  this 
.•<tate  of  mind  when  they  thought  they  saw  Jesus,  con- 
tinued  to  believe    thai    tliev   saw   liiin   after   thev   relnrned   to 


NKW     TESTA. MKNT    BOOKS.  137 

their  normal  mental  <'i)iKlition.     The  peiMnancncy  of  their  be- 
lief is  a  complete  refutation  of  this  theory. 

Not  content  with  the  bare  statement  that  the  witnesses  ^j*|^^'*pj 
were  hallucinated,  skeptics  have  undertaken  to  trace  the  exact  pj^*^^' 
process  by  which  they  were  led  to  believe  that  they  had  seen  ]!e\ltL 
Jesus.  As  this  attempt  is  made  more  in  detail  by  Renan  than 
by  others,  we  shall  take  up  his  remarks  on  the  subject  as  the 
representative  of  all.  In  regard  to  Mary  Magdalene,  he  follows 
the  account  given  by  John  in  every  detail  except  that  of  see- 
ing the  angels,  up  to  the  point  when  she  spoke  to  the  supposed 
gardener;  then  he  says  that  she  thought  she  heard  her  nann- 
called :  .she  thought  it  was  the  voice  of  Jesus ;  she  cried, "  O 
my  Master!"  and  threw  herself  at  his  feet,  when  "the  light 
vision  gives  way,  and  says  to  her,  Touch  me  not."  "Little 
by  little  the  shadow  passes  away,"  and  she  believes  that  she 
has  seen  Jesus.'  Now  this  is  so  near  the  whole  story  as  toM 
by  John,  that  it  leaves  no  room  for  the  theory  which  Renan 
would  make  it  support.  If  Mary  thought  she  heard  her  name 
called,  why  should  we  think  that  she  did  not?  And  if,  on 
hearing  the  voice  the  second  time,  she  recognized  the  voice  of 
Jesus,  looked  upon  the  person  who  spoke,  an<l  fell  at  his  feet 
because   she    recognized    him    as   Jesus,  why  should  we  doubt 

1  "  Petri-  and  John  having  tie-  so  often  thrilled  her  before.  It  was 
parted  from  the  garden,  Mary  re-  the  accent  of  .lesiis.  'Oh,  my 
mained  alone  at  the  edge  of  the  Master!"  she  cries.  !>^he  is  about 
cave.  She  wept  copiously  ;  one  sole  to  touch  him.  .\  sort  of  instinctive 
thought  preoccupied  her  mind:  movement  throws  her  at  his  feet  to 
Where  had  they  put  the  body  ?  ki.ss  them.  The  light  vision  gives 
Her  woman's  heart  went  no  further  way.  and  says  to  her, 'Touch  me 
than  her  desire  to  clasp  again  in  not!'  Little  by  little  the  shadow 
her  arms  the  Vjcloved '^orpse.  Sud-  disappears.  But  the  miracle  <i 
deniy  slie  hears  a  light  rustling  love  is  accomplished.  That  wliidi 
behind  her.  There  is  a  man,  stand-  Cephas  could  not  do.  .Mary  h;is 
ing.  At  first  she  believes  it  to  l)e  <lone;  siie  has  been  abU-  to  draw 
the  gardener.  'Oh!'  she  says, 'if  life,  sweet  and  jienetrating  words 
thou  ha.st  borne  him  hence,  tell  me  from  the  empty  tomb.  There  is 
where  thou  hast  laid  him,  that  I  now  no  more  talk  of  inferences  to 
may  take  him  away.'  For  the  only  be  deduced,  or  of  conjectures  to  be 
answer,  she  thinks  that  she  hears  framed.  Mary  has  .seen  and  heard, 
herself  called  by  her  own  name,  The  resurrection  has  its  first  direct 
'Mary.'      It  w.m.s  the  voii-f   tb;it  li:id     \\itii"s«."        Apoxth'K,  iH\] 


lo8  CltEDll'.ILnY    OI'     IIIE 

that  it  was  he  ■?  She  know  him  us  perfectly  as  one  human 
being  can  know  another;  and  how  coukl  she  be  mistaken  in 
his  identity  when  she  both  heard  his  voice  and  looked  upon  his 
person  ?  Even  if  he  did  "  little  by  little  "  disappear — an  asser- 
tion made  without  evidence — this  detracts  nothing  fiom  the 
reality  of  liis  appearance  before  he  began  to  disappear.  This 
theory  differs  from  John's  account  in  only  one  particular — in 
supposing  that,  instead  of  seeing  Jesus,  Mary  saw  a  "  shadow  " 
which  she  mistook  for  Jesus — a  supposition  as  thin  as  the 
shadow  which  it  conjures  up. 
Attempt  Xhe  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  makes  an  attempt  to 

|u^*^Kei  i'lipi'ove  on  this  explanation,  by  observing  that  if  Mary  had 
turned  away  at  the  instant  in  which  she  thought  the  person 
who  spoke  to  her  was  the  gardener,  this  inference  would  have 
remained  and  have  been  erroneous;  from  which,  lie  says,  we 
might  argue,  that  if  still  further  examination  had  taken  place, 
her  second  inference  might  have  proved  as  erroneous  as  the 
first.'  To  put  this  in  familiar  form,  it  means  about  this:  you 
met  a  gentleman,  and  when  he  first  called  your  name  you  did 
not  recognize  him ;  but  on  hearing  the  voice  a  second  time 
you  recognized  it  as  that  of  an  old  friend.  You  then  looked 
at  him,  and  recognized  his  person,  and  held  out  your  hand  to 
him.  Now  it  is  suggested  that  if  you  had  looked  at  him  a 
little  closer  you  would  have  seen  that  he  was  not  your 
old  friend  at  all,  but  a  shadow  conjured  up  in  your  own 
imagination !  Such  reasoning  reverses  all  experience,  and 
shows  how  desperate  are  the  straits  to  which  learned  and 
ingenious  men  are  driven  when  they  attempt  to  explain  away 
Baur'8     tj^g  testimony  for  the  resurrection.     Baur  realize<l  the  weak- 

opinion  •' 

ftuempfs  nes.s  of  their  cause  and  his  own  at  this  point,  and  con- 
sequently, while  assuming  with  t\\v.  writers  just  quoted  that 
the  (change  in  the  disciples  from  uid)clief  to  belief  in  the  res- 
urrection was  the  residt  of  an  "  inward  spiritual  process,"  he 
utterly  repudiates  their  atlcm])t>  to  (ixplain  the  process,  by 
asserting  that  "  no  psycholoij^ical  analysis  can  show  what  that 
process  was.'' ^     Tlii,'-   is  the  candidlv   cxi^-csscd  judgment  of 

'  .S'up.  /ic/.,  iii.  497,  note.  iirrection  is  of    minor  importance 

*"The  view  we  lake  of  tlio   n-s-    for  tho  liistory.     We  may  lOfjard  it 


NESV    TESTAMENT    lUjOKS.  l;j*) 

oue  of"  the   most  learnud  and  acute  oi"  all   of  the  men    who 
liave  written  against  the  evidence  of  the  resurrection. 

In  regard  to  the  other  women,  Rcium  first   nii.srenreseuts?^°*° «" 

°  '  I  the  belief 

their  testimony  by  saying  that  they  did  not  claim  to  have°(f|^jp 
seen  Jesus,  and  then  tries  to  account  for  their  claim  to  have^*^™^°' 
seen  and  lieard  the  angel,  by  saying  :  "  Perhaps  it  was  the 
linen  clothes  which  had  given  rise  to  this  hallucination;" 
and  ''  Perhaps,  again,  they  saw  nothing  at  all,  and  only 
began  to  speak  of  their  vision  when  Mary  of  Magdala  had 
rrlated  hers."  '  As  to  the  former  of  these  two  perhapses, 
the  supposition  that  four  or  five  women,  entering  a  tomb  to 
put  spices  on  a  dead  body,  and  finding  only  the  grave  clothes  , 
there,  would  take  those  folded  pieces  of  linen  for  a  young 
man  in  dazzling  apparel,  and  think  they  heard  him  say  to 
them,  "He  is  no  longer  here;  return  into  Galilee;  he  will  go 
before  you;  there  you  shall  see  him,"  appears  incalculably 
more  like  the  working  of  a  disordered  brain  than  anything 
these  artless  women  ever  did  or  said.  The  other  supposition, 
that  they  saw  nothing,  but  only  told  their  tale  after  Mary  iiad 
told  hers;  that  i>,  that  they  made  up  u  lie  to  keep  Mary  from 
excelling  them  in  telling  big  tales,  is  the  more  reasonable  of 
the  two,  and  it  would  doubtless  have  been  adopted  in  prefer- 
ence but  for  the  fact  that  a  real  belief  in  the  resurrection  is 
admitted,  and  this  would  be  accounting  for  its  existence  by 
denying  that  it  existed  at  all.  How  much  more  rational  to 
believe  the  whole  story  told  by  the  women,  than  to  believe 
this  absurd  effv)rt  to  ex])lain  it  away.  In  accounting  for  the^j"j'j|j.*' 
belief  of  the  Twelve,  Kenan  succeeds  no  better.  After  tlu'*^'^^*^"' 
a.ssumption  already  cited  (page  123),  that  tlicy  mistook  a  cur- 
rent of  air,  a  creaking  window,  or  a  chance  murmur  for  the 
voice  of  Jesus,  he  says  they  immediately  decided  that  Jesus 
was  present,  and  "some  pretended  to  have  oi)served  on  his 
hands  and  his  feet  the  mark  of  the  nails,  and  on    his  side  the 

as  an  outward  objective  miracle,  or  death  of  .Jesus  was   changed   into 

as  a  subjective   psychological  niir-  belief  of  bis  resurrection,  still   no 

acle;  since,  though  we  assume  that  psychological    analysis    can    show 

an    inward    spiritiial    process   was  what  that  process  was."     (Church 

possible  by  which  the  unbelief  of  HiMnry,  i.  42.) 

the   disciples   at    tbe   time   of    the  '  ApmOiK,  (»•_'. 


140  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

mark  of  the  .spear  which  pierced  him."  '  This  is,  in  the  first 
place,  a  false  representation  of  the  testimony.  The  testimony 
is,  that  when  they  heard  the  voice,  instead  of  instantly 
believing  that  Jesus  was  in  their  midst,  they  were  "  terrified 
and  affrighted,  and  supposed  that  they  beheld  a  spirit ;"  and 
that  it  was  not  until  he  sliowed  them  his  hands  and  feet,  and 
ate  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  in  their  presence,  that  they  were 
sure  it  was  he  (Luke  xxii.  36-43).  Tliis  is  the  testimony  to  be 
dealt  with,  and  not  the  imaginary  representation  which  Renan 
substitutes  for  it.  With  this  before  us,  we  can  at  once  see 
that  either  they  told  the  truth,  or  the  assertion  made  by 
Renan  about  some  of  them  is  true  of  all,  they  pretended  to 
have  seen  his  wounds;  and  this  means  that  their  story  is  a 
falsehood.  Here  again  the  theory  of  hallucination  breaks  to 
pieces  in  the  hands  of  its  advocates,  and  turns  into  the  theory 
of  intentional  falsehood.  That  it  does  so  is  proof  that  there 
is  no  middle  ground  between  charging  the  witnesses  with 
conscious  fraud,  and  admitting  the  truth  of  their  testimony. 
of°Puui  ^^  *^  *^^  origin  of  Paul's  belief,  after  stating  the  theory  of 

delirious  fever  which  we  have  already  noticed  (page  123),  Renan 
says  that  while  a  prey  to  these  iiallucinations  Paul  saw  Jesus, 
and  heard  him  say  to  him,  "Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
me?"  and  that  instantly  his  sentiments  experienced  a  revul- 
sion as  thorough  as  it  was  sudden  ;  "and  yet  all  this  Avas  but 
a  new  order  of  fanaticism."-  If  there  were  any  reason  at  all 
for  thinking  that  Paul  was  at  the  time  suffering  from  delirious 
fever,  it  would  be  possible  to  suppose  that  in  this  fever  he 
was  possessed  by  such  a  hallucination;  but  that  he  would 
have  believed  this  hallucination  to  be  a  reality  after  he  recov- 

'  ApoMloi,  ()7,  <)8.  thiilliuK  tlioujjht.s  rush  in  upontlie 

^"AikI  what  (lid    he  see;    whut  soul  oi  T'aul.    Alive  to  the  enoniiity 

(lid   he  hear,  while  a  prey  to  these  of    his    conduet,    lie    saw    Inmself 

hallucinations?     He  saw  the  conn-  stained  with  the  blood  of  Stephen, 

tcnance  which   had   haunted   him  and   this'  martyr  appeared  to  him 

tor  several  days;  he  saw  the  phan-  as  his  father,  his  initiator  into  the 

torn  of  which  so   much   had  been  new  faith.    Touched  to  the  quick, 

said.     He  saw  .Jesus  himself,  who  his  sentiments  experienced  a  levul- 

spohe  to  him  in  Hebrew,  sayin;,',  sion  as  thonMifjfh  as  it  was  sudden; 

'Sanl,  Saul,  why   persecutest    thou  and  yet  all  this  was  but  a  new  order 

nie'."     ,     .  Instantly   the    most  of  fiinaticisni."'    { AjuiMh-x,  17.S,  174i. 


New  testament  books.  141 

iTeil  from  tlie  fevt-r  is  preposterous;  it  is  contrary  to  all  the 
experiences  of  persons  who  have  had  fever.  The  absurdity  of 
the  supposition  appears  more  glarini;  still,  when  we  retueniber 
that  Paul's  disbelief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  based  on  his 
deliberate  judgment  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  prophesies  on 
that  subject  found  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  there  could  be 
no  possible  connection  between  a  halliicinatitin  experienced  in 
fever  and  the  exegesis  which  had   h  d   him  to  his  conclusion.s. 

Baur  follows  in  the  train  of  those  who  hold  Paul's  vision  naurs  at- 

II  L-        •  •  tempt. 

of  Jesus  to  have  been  a  subjective  experience,  but  he  re})udiates 
the  hypothesis  defended  by  Renan,  that  a  thunderstorm  burst- 
ing from  the  sides  of  Mount  Hermon  was  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  transition.'  He  holds  that  the  account  of  that  miracu- 
lous light  is  nothing  but  a  symbolical  and  mythical  expression 
for  the  real  presence  of  the  glorified  Jesus;  and  he  says: 
*'  However  firmly  the  Apostle  may  have  believed  that  he  saw 
the  form  of  Jesus  actually  and,  as  it  were,  externally  before 
him,  his  testimony  extends  merely  to  what  he  believed  he 
saw."  This  last  remark  is  unquestionably  true ;  and  the 
only  question  is,  Did  he  see  what  he  believed  he  saw,  or  was 
he  mistaken  ?  As  we  have  said  before,  if  there  occurred  within 
him,  from  some  unnatural  state  of  mind,  the  conviction  that 
he  was  seeing  and  hearing  Jesus,  this  conviction  would  have 
passed  away  with  the  unnatural  mental  state  which  brought  it 
about;  and  eonser|uently  the  fact  that  he  continued  to  believe 
that  he  saw  and  ln'arcl  with  his  phvsical  senses  is  the  l»est  of 
proof  that  he  <lid. 

Strauss,  dismissing   with    Baur   the    theorv    of  a   thunder  Strauss' 

'  °  •  nttoni|.t. 

storm,  makes  a  somewhat  different  attempt  to  account  for 
Paul's  belief  psychologically.  He  says :  '^Vpart  from  the  blind- 
ness and  its  removal  by  Ananias,  as  also  the  phenomena  seen 
by  the  attendants,  we  miLrhl  look  upon  all  as  a  vision  which 
Paul  attributed  indeed  to  an  (wternal  cause,  but  which,  never- 

'  "  The  well  known  modern  liy-  mere  hypothesis;  and  us  it  not  only 
pothesis,  sfi  often  rcpeatetl.  tliat  lias  no  foil ndatioii  in  the  text,  but 
this  lijjht  was  a  flash  of  li^jhtning  is  also  in  manifest  contratlirtion 
which  suddenly  striiek  the  apostle  with  the  meaning  of  tlie  author,  we 
and  laid  him  and  his  companions  shall  make  no  finthrr  mention  of 
senselPBS  on  the  ground,  is  reallv  a    M  here."     (Baur,  I'mil.  i   »;S. ) 


14"2  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

theless,  took  place  in  his  own  mind."  In  auother  place  ho 
speaks  in  more  positive  terms  of  Paul's  conviction,  saying: 
"  It  is  certain  that  in  doing  so  he  considered  the  ascended 
Christ  as  really  and  externally  present,  the  appearance  as  in 
the  full  sense  an  objective  one ;"  but  he  claims  the  right  to 
be  of  a  different  opinion  from  Paul/  He  attempts  to  account 
for  this  singular  mistake  of  an  inward  for  an  outward  vision 
by  supposing  that  Paul,  in  hours  of  despondency,  when  think- 
ing of  the  tranquillity  of  the  disciples  under  persecution  in 
contrast  with  his  own  troubled  feelings,  began  to  question 
himself  as  to  whether,  after  all,  he  might  not  be  wrong  and  they 
right;  and  that  an  ecstasy  coming  on  him  —  that  is,  in  plain 
terras,  an  epileptic  fit — Jesus  appeared  and  spoke  to  him." 
Here,  by  the  necessity  of  his  attempt  to  show  that  Paul  mis- 
took the  working  of  his  own  mind  for  the  miraculous  appear- 
ance of  Jesus,  he  falls  into  the  supposition  which  avc  have 
already  so  fully  exposed  as  absurd,  that  Paul  was  demented  at 
the  time  of  his  conversion.  Christian  Baur  repudiates  all 
these  theories  of  his  fellow  infidels,  and  declares  concerning 
Paul's  faitii  as  he  does  concerning  that  of  the  older  Apostles, 
that  it  gan  not  be  accounted  for  in  any  such  way.' 
attempts  -^^  ^  ^^'^^  cxposure  of  the  futility  of  all  of  these  attempts 
ciudedbv*^*  account  for  Paul's  belief  without  admitting  the  reality 
bfind^  f*^  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him,  we  cite  the  fact  of  the 
blindness,  which  resulted  from  the  brilliancy  of  the  light  that 
shone  around  him.     Strauss  fit  that  this  blindness  was  in  his 

^  New  Life,  i  414,  417.  ))e  conceivt'd  as  a  spiritual  process; 

*j6.,  420.  and   tliis  implies  that  some  step  of 

'"We   can  not  call    his  conver-  transition    was    not   wantir.ji;   from 

sion,    his    sudden     transformation  one  extrem(^   to   the   other.     It   is 

from  the  most  vehement  opponent  true  thiit  no  an;dysi.s,  either  psycho- 

of    Ciiristianity    into    its    boldest  logical  or  dialectical,  can  detect  the 

preacher,  anything  but  a  miracle;  inner  secret   of  the   act  in  which 

and  the    miracle    appears  jdl   the  (iod  revealeil  his  Son  in  1dm.     Yet 

greater  when  we  renninber  that  in  it  may  very  justly  l)e  asked  whether 

tins  revulsion  of  his  consciousness  what  made  the  transition  possil)]e 

he  broke    tlirough    the    barriers  of  can  have  been  anything  else  tiian 

Judaism,  and   rose  out  of  the  par-  thegreatimpressiveness  with  which 

ticularism  of  Judai.sin  into  the  uni-  the  great  fact  of  the  death  of  Jesus 

versal    idea  of    Christianity.     Yet  came  all  at  once  to  stand  before  his 

great  as  this  miracle  \^,  it  '-an  only  soul."     {Church  HUtory,  i.  47.) 


ness. 


NEW   TESTAMENT   BOOKS.  143 

way,  as  appears  from  the  qualifying  clause  with  which  he  in- 
troduces his  theory :  "  Apart  from  the  bliiulness  and  its 
removal  by  Ananias,  we  might  look  upon  all  as  a  vision."' 
But  the  narrative  can  not  be  considered  apart  from  this  blind- 
ness and  its  removal.  The  latter  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
story,  without  which  all  that  is  said  about  Paul's  conversion 
in  Acts  breaks  to  pieces.  It  is  necessary  either  to  get  rid  of 
the  blindness,  or  to  believe  the  whole  story;  for  if  the  blind- 
ness was  real,  the  tlieory  of  a  mere  mental  change  in  Paul 
without  an  external  cause  must  be  dismissed  ;  and  so  must 
the  hypothesis  of  an  ecstasy,  for  an  ecstasy  does  not  make 
men  blind.  It  also  sets  aside  the  supposition  of  an  optical 
illusion  and  that  of  a  falsehood,  for  neither  optical  illusions 
nor  falsehoods  make  men  blind.  The  blindness  and  its  re- 
moval stamp  the  whole  story  with  the  indelible  marks  of 
truthfulness  and  reality.  Baur,  realizing  this,  attempts  to  get^^^^'j^^^ 
rid  of  the  blindness.  After  referring  to  what  is  said  of  the  ^^"^^ji.^^. 
visit  and  the  remarks  of  Ananias,  he  says:  "Is  not,  then,  the°^^^- 
*to  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,'  which  was  wont  to  follow 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  in  itself  a  healing  of  blindness,  an 
<ha6/Jzeiu  in  a  spiritual  sense ;  and  does  not  the  expression, 
'  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  were,  scales,'  seem 
to  indicate  that  they  were  no  real  scales,  that  there  was  no 
real  blindness,  no  real  cure  ?'' '  These  questions  would  have 
plausibility  if  the  statements  of  the  text  about  the  blindness 
were  at  all  ambiguous;  but  they  are  not  so.  Luke  says  that 
when  Paul  opened  his  eyes  after  the  vision  'Mie  saw  nothing;" 
and  that  he  was  "three  days  and  nights  without  sight;"  and 
Paul  says:  "When  T  could  not  see  for  the  glory  of  that  light, 
being  led  by  the  hand  of  them  that  were  with  me,  I  came  into 
Damascus."  In  regard  to  the  restoration  of  his  sight  Luke 
represents  Ananias  as  saying  to  iiim,  "The  Lord  hath  sent  me 
that  thou  mayest  receive  thy  sight  and  be  filled  wMth  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Two  purposes  are  here  declared:  that  he  might  re- 
ceive sight  is  one,  and  that  he  might  be  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  another,  and  it  is  totally  distinct  from  the  first. 
Neither  of  these  purposes  was  at  all  dependent  on  the  other; 
^  New  Life,  \.  A\4.    ^  I'anl,  i.  72. 


144  CKEDIBII.ITY    OF    THE 

for  Paul  might  have  been  restored  to  his  sight  without  receiv- 
ing the  Holy  Spirit,  and  he  might  have  received  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  it  been  in  accordance  with  God's  subsequent  pur- 
poses concerning  him,  without  receiving  his  sight.  Further- 
more, Luke  says:  "And  straightway  there  fell  from  his  eyes, 
as  it  w'ere,  scales,  and  he  received  his  sight."  The  expression 
*'  as  it  were  scales,"  shows  of  course  that  they  were  not  real 
scales,  but  it  does  not  show  that  they  were  nothing.  They 
were  doubtless  obstructions  to  sight  which  had  formed  on  the 
eyes,  and  they  resulted  from  the  inflammation  caused  by  the 
intensity  of  the  light.  Paul's  account  is  that  Ananias  said  to 
him,  "Brother  Saul,  receive  thy  sight;"  and  ho  adds:  "In 
that  very  hour  I  looked  upon  him."  Only  on  the  supposition 
that  tliese  several  statements  of  Paul  and  Luke  are  false  can 
any  of  the  questions  propounded  by  Baur  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative  except  the  last,  which  is  thus  answered  in  the  text 
im>Hve^  itself  Let  it  be  noted,  too,  that  the  only  reason  why  infidels 
attempt,  ^"an  wish  to  get  rid  of  the  fact  of  the  l)lindness  is  because  it 
proves  the  reality  of  the  miraculous  light  which  caused  it,  and 
of  the  miraculous  cure  which  removed  it.  Now,  if  in  the 
accounts  of  it  given  in  the  text  of  Scripture  it  had  the  nppear- 
ance  of  being  lugged  in  to  artificially  support  the  evidence  of 
these  two  miracles,  this  would  justly  excite  suspicion  of  its 
reality ;  but  no  such  artificiality  is  charged,  and  there  is  not 
the  slightest  indication  of  it  to  be  found.  It  must  stand  as  a 
fact;  and  while  it  stands,  it  stands  as  an  impassable  barrier  to 
the  attempts  of  skeptics  to  throw  doubt  on  the  reality  of 
Paul's  vision  of  Christ  glorified.  It  was  largely  owing  to  this 
fact,  perfectly  well  known  to  the  unbelieving  friends  of  Paul 
during  the  three  days  of  its  continuance,  that  he  "confounded 
the  Jews  who  dwelt  at  Damascus,  proving  that  this  is  the 
Christ"  (Actsix.  22). 
theoViet  ^^  "°^^  ^^^  *^^^  ^^'  attempts  lo  break  the  force  of  the 

Hii  fntiie.  evidence  for  the  resurrection  by  adverse  theories  concerning 
the  disappearance  of  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  origin  of 
the  belief  of  the  disciples  that  he  had  risen,  are  as  futile  as 
those  to  invalidate  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  by  various 
charges  against  them.     The  case,  then,  is  the  third   of  those 


NKW    TESTAMENT    liOOKS.  14,j 

mentioued  at  the  beginniug  of  the  chapter  (l;i2,  133).  These 
two  facts  are  to  be  accounted  for.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus 
accounts  for  them  adequately,  and  on  no  other  hypothesis  can 
they  be  accounted  for  at  all;  therefore  we  arc  confined  to  the 
actual  resurrection  as  the  true  and  only  cause  of  the  admitted 
facts. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  RESURRECTION    OF   JESUS:    THE  TESTIMONY   OF  THE 

WITNESSES. 

The  writers  through  whose  reports  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses  comes  to  us  having  been  named,  and  their  authen- 
The  pres- ticity  vindicated,  we  next  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  qualifica- 
quiry.      liQjjg  of  the  witnesses  themselves.     We  have  considered  these 
to  some  extent  in  the  last  chapter,  but  only  in  the  way  of 
inquiring  whether  the  witnesses  are  liable  to  certain  charges 
which   have   been   preferred   against  them   by  their  enemies. 
We  now  take  up  the  inquiry  as  an  original  question,  and  will 
conduct  it  as  it  should  be  conducted  in  regard  to  any  wit- 
nesses of  important  events, 
deter-*"  The  forcc  of  human  testimony  depends  on  three  things: 

honesty^  first,  the  honesty  of  the  witnesses;  second,  their  competency; 
ncsses:     and   third,   their  number.      We  ascertain    whether  they  are 
honest,    by    considering    their    general    character    and    their 
motives  in  the  particular  case.     Hence,  in  attemptinij;  to  im- 
peach a  witness  in  a  court  of  justice,  it  is  common  to  call  on 
men  who  know  him,  to  testify  as  to  his  general  repiitation  for 
veracity;  and  also  to  inquire  whether  he  is  personally  inter- 
ested in  establishing  the   facts   to   which   he  testifies.     Cora- 
compc-     potency  is  determined  by  considering  the  opportunities  of  the 
tcncy:      ^vitness  to  obtain  knowledge  of  that  to  which  he  testifies,  and 
his  mental  capacity  to  observe  and  remember  the  facts.     The 
requisite   number  varies  with   the  degree  of  probability  at- 
tached to  the  facts.     The  testimony  of  two  honest  and  com- 
petent witnesses  makes  us  feel    more  sure  than  that  of  one ; 
rVMullTtc  a"^^    *^^'''t   ^^  three,  than   that  of  two;    but    a    limit    is    soon 
iiiimbpr.    ,.gjjgl^p^  beyond  whieh  tl)ose  who  an-  eonviiieed    feel    tlie    need 
f  1  ir. ) 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  147 

of  no  more,  and  those  wlio  are  not  yet  convinced  realize  that 
more    ^vould    not    convince   iheni.      When   this    iiural)er   has 
"testified  in  any  case,  the  number  is  sufficient,  and  a  greater 
number  would  be  useless. 

Applying  these  tests  to  the  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  ^g^',^'.^^"" 
of  Jesus,  we  find  that  their  genei-al  character,  judged  by  all  Jj^g^gg^'^' 
that  we  know  of  thcni,  is  good.     The  sentiments  uttered  by  by7he!r 
the  principal  witnesses  are  those  which  to  this  day  guide  thcments; 
consciences  of  the  most  enlightened   men   in   the   world;  and 
no  teachers  have  ever  insisted  more  strenuously  than  they  on 
the  duty  of  strict  veracity.     As  to  their  motives  in  testifying 
to   the   fact  of  the   resurrection,  they    are    above    suspicion. 
The  motives  which  prompt  men  to  false  testimony  are  fear,  ^^5^^.^^^^^ 
avarice,  and    ambition;    fear  of  some  evil   to   themselves  or^^aUe^ 
others,  which  is  to  be  averted  by   the  testimony;  desire  ofmony; 
sordid    gain ;    and    ambition    for    some    kind    of  distinction 
among  men.     Can  any  of  these  motives  have  prompted  the 
Apostles  to  falsely  testify  that  God  had  raised  Jesus  from  the 
dead?     It  is  impossible  to  sec  any  threatened  calamity  which 
they  or  their  friends  would  have  escaped  by  tliis  testimony  if 
it  is  false.     On  the  other  hand,  they  must   have  anticipated  p?elenc© 
much  danger  to  themselves  if  they  should  publicly  proclaim  Mv^or 
it;  for  to  publicly  proclaim  it  would  be  to  proclaim  the  chief^ 
priests  and  Pilate  murderers,  convicted  as  such  by  the  act  of 
God  in  raising  from  the  dead  him  whom  they  had  slain.     For 
such  an  offense  they  could  not  expect  anything  but  the  sever- 
est punishment;  or,  if  they  hoped  at  first  to  convince  these 
rulers,  and  to  bring  them  to  repentance,  the  hope  was  soon 
dissipated  ;  for  it  was  on  account  of  this  very  testimony  that 
they  were  arrested,  thrown  into  prison,  .scourged,  and  pursued 
with    all    manner   <>f    ])ersccution.      Really    the   Twelve    suf-J'^'^/'J^f. 
fered  the  loss  of  all   that   men   (.nlinarily    hold   dear  in  con- f,^.^J;^\^;',^" 
.sequence  of  persisting  in   this  testimony;   and  the  honesty  <'f',Uii-^"^ 
no  set  of  witnesses  was  ever  so  .severely  tested,  or  so   clearly    "  • 
demonstrated.     This  is  especially  true  of  the   Apostle   Paul, 
who  >uffered  more  than  any   other  witness.     The  demonstra- JJj,^p^j,^y 
tion  is   so  complete    that   it    has    won    the   acknowledgment,'"'"^'"^'' 
espe<'ially    witli    icR-rence    to    I'aul.  of   the   nn»s(    deterniined 


'I'lie  wit- 
nesses 


148  CKEDIUn.lTY    OK     i  HE 

foes  of"  the  Christian  faitli.  Thus  the  author  of  Supernatural 
Religion  says:  "As  to  the  Apostle  Paul  himself,  let  it  be  said 
in  the  strongest  and  most  emphatic  manner  possible,  that  we* 
do  not  suggest  the  most  distant  suspicion  of  the  sincerity  of 
any  historical  statement  he  makes." '  Being  honest,  the 
witnesses  believed  that  of  which  they  testified  ;  and  if  they 
believed  it,  it  must  be  true  unless  they  were  mistaken. 
Whether  they  can  have  been  mistaken  or  not,  depends  on 
their  competency,  and  this  we  are  next  to  consider. 

Of  the  opportunities  which  these  honest  witnesses  enjoyed 
fe^'J^'en.  for  knowing  that  of  which  they  testify,  we  are  informed  by 
''^^^^-        their   own   statements.      Of  their  mental    capacity    we    have 
already  spoken  in  full  while  discussing  the  charge  that  they 
were  halhicinated.     Under  the  head  of  competency,  then,  we 
have  only  to  examine  their  several  statements,  and  see  whether 
their  opportunities  were  such  as  to  insure  that  they  were  not 
mistaken.     We  shall  do  this  by  considering,  first,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  women;    second,  that  of  Clcopas  and  his   un- 
named companion;  third,  that  of  the  Twelve;  and  fourth,  that 
of  Paul. 
raatJwit-        "^'^^  women  who  went  to  the  sepulcher  on  the  third  morn- 
ing were  Mary  Magdalene,  whose  excellent  character  is  suffi- 
ciently attested  by  the  fact  that  she  was  the  most  intimate  and 
devoted  female  friend  of  Jesus ;  Mary   the  mother  of  James 
and  Joseph,  of  whom  we  only  know  that  she  Avas  one  of  the 
company  of  Jesus;  Salome,  the   honored  mother  of  the  two 
Apostles,  James  and  John  ;  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Herod's  steward, 
who,  considering   her    relation  through   her  husband  to  that 
murderer  of  John  the  Baptist  and  persecutor  of  Jesus,  could 
have  become  a  follower  of  the   latter  only  through   the   most 
disinterested   motives;  and  "other  women,"  whose  names  arc 
not  given   because,  perhaps,  they  were   not  conspicuous  in  the 
cliurch  at  the  time  that  our  (xospels  were  written,  or  because 
it  was  thouglit  by  the  writer  that  the  names  given  were  suffi- 
cient in  number.     All  that  is  said  in  our  Gospels  to  have  been 
seen    and    heard  by  these  women  was  of  course  derived   from 
them  by  the  writers,  and  it  is  their  tcslimonv. 
'>"/'.  A''/.,  iii.   I'.n;. 


iiesses. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  149 

On  reaching  the  scpulolu'r  and   finding  it  open  lliey  claim, '^.PP^''^"- 

'-'  '  o  I  J  }  luties  of 

as  we  learn  from  Murk  and  Luke,  to  have  entered  into  it — a^,^^""" 
circumstance  of  which  Matthew  says  nothing.  On  entering  fvomen! 
they  foimd  the  tomb  empty,  and  soon  they  saw  within  it  t wo  fitu-'^^"^ 
angels,  though  Matthew  and  Mark  mention  only  one  of  them,  ™'^"^' 
the  one  who  had  opened  the  tomb  and  who  immediately  speaks 
to  the  women.  His  words,  only  partly  reported  by  any  one 
writer,  when  put  together  in  their  natural  order,  are  these: 
"Fear  not:  fori  know  that  ye  seek  Jesus  who  hath  been 
crucified.  Why  seek  ye  the  living  among  the  dead?  He  is 
not  here,  for  he  is  risen,  even  as  he  said.  Remember  how  he 
spake  to  you  while  he  was  yet  in  Galilee,  saying  that  the  Son 
of  Man  must  be  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of  sinful  nun,  and 
be  crucified,  and  the  third  day  rise  again.  Come,  see  the  j)laoe 
where  the  Lord  lay.  And  go  quickly,  and  tell  his  disciples  he 
is  risen  from  the  dead;  and  lo,  he  goeth  before  you  into  Gali- 
lee; there  ye  shall  see  him :  lo,  I  have  told  you."  As  they  ran 
from  the  tomb  to  carry  this  message,  Jesus  himself  met  them, 
and  saluted  them  with  the  word,  "All  hail."  "  They  came  and 
took  hold  of  his  feet,  and  worshiped  him."  While  doing  this, 
again  they  hear  his  voice:  "Fear  not:  go  tell  my  disciples, 
that  they  depart  into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they  see  me." 

While  the  three  synoptic  Gospels  give  jointly  the  details  The  op- 
just  recited,  that  of  Mark,  without  explanation,  informs  ns^  j^j*^^^,"! 
that  Jesus  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  which  implies 
that  before  the  appearance  to  the  women  just  mentioned  she 
had  separated  herself  from  the  others,  for  had  she  been  with 
them  they  would  have  seen  him  as  soon  as  she  did.  The 
fourth  Gospel  accounts  for  this  separation,  and  gives  the  par- 
ticulars of  the  appearance  to  Mary.  It  informs  us  that  when 
she  saw  that  the  stone  was  removed  frr)m  the  tomb  she  run  to 
John  and  Peter,  and  said  :  "  Tlicy  have  taken  away  the  Lord 
out  of  the  tomb,  and  we  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him." 
As  she  had  not  entered  the  tomb,  she  inferred  that  the  i)ody 
had  been  removed  from  the  mere  fact  that  the  tomb  was  open. 
From  this  paasage  we  gather  that  her  separation  from  the 
other  women,  implied  in  Mark's  narrative,  took  place  at  the 
moment  when  they  saw  that  the  tomb  was  open,  and  that  she 


150  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

dill  not  go  into  the  tomb  with  them.  This  ciroiiinstunce 
Matthew  failed  to  mention ;  consequently  his  narrative  reads 
as  if  she  continued  with  them.  On  hearing  Mary's  statement, 
Peter  and  John  ran  to  the  sepulcher,  and  Mary  followed  them. 
After  they  departed  she  stood  for  awhile  weeping,  and  "as  she 
wept  she  stooped  and  looked  into  the  tomb."  When  she  did 
so  she  beheld  the  two  angels  who  had  showed  themselves  to 
the  other  women,  but  not  to  the  men,  and  she  observed  that 
one  of  them  sat  at  the  head  and  the  other  at  the  feet  of  where 
Jesus  had  laid.  She  knew  these  spots  not  by  having  seen  the 
body  after  it  was  laid  in  the  tomb,  but  from  having  seen 
Joseph  and  Nicodemus  take  it  in,  and  observing  whether  it 
was  carried  in  head  foremost  or  feet  foremost.  Her  observa- 
festi-^^"^  tion  and  her  memory  were  very  accurate.  She  testifies  that 
™""''-  the  angels  said  (one  of  them  of  course  doing  the  speaking): 
"  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ?"  She  answered  :  "  Because  they 
have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have 
laid  him."  At  this  instant,  for  a  reason  Avhich  she  does  not 
give,  she  "turned  herself  back"  and  beheld  Jesus  standing 
near,  but  mistook  him  for  the  gardener.  He  said:  "Woman, 
why  weepest  thou?"  And  she  answered:"  Sir,  if  thou  hast 
borne  him  hence,  tell  me  where  thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I  will 
take  him  away."  She  evident^  thought  that  the  gardener 
would  be  glad  to  be  relieved  of  the  dead  body.  For  an 
answer  she  hears  her  own  name.  "She  turneth  herself,"  being 
only  partially  turned  toward  him  before,  recognizes  him,  and 
exclaims,  "  Kabboni."  He  says  to  her:  "  Touch  me  not ;  for  I 
am  not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father:  but  go  unto  my  breth- 
ren, and  say  to  them,  I  ascend  unto  my  Father  and  your 
Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God." 
n.nv  this  With  this  testimony  before  us,  we  ask.  Did  these  women 
">;;"y«'as  have  good  and  sufficient  opportunity  to  know  beyond  ques- 
1111(1  how  tion  that  thev  saw  what  tliev  claimed  to  have  seen,  and  heard 

ir  should  •  •  ' 

''^■-  the  words  which  they    reported?     M'hcn    the    male  disciples 

heard  it  all,  they   believed   it  not  ;  but    their  disbelief  arose 

not    from    considering    deliberately    the    (piestion    which    we 

have  just  propounded,  but  from   the   foregone  conclusion  that 

Jesus  was  not  to  rise,  the  very  reason  why  some  in  (Mir  own 


NEW     IKSrAMEXT    I'.OOKS.  151 

dav  will  not  believe.  But  when  they  considered  the  evidence 
maturely  they  accepted  it  as  true,  and  so  must  every  one  to- 
day who  considers  it  without  prejudice. 

To  the  testimony  of  the  women  in  regard  to  the  absence ^•jj^j'y^f^^' 
of  the  body  ffom  the  tomb  is  added  that  of  Peter  and  John.  Jq,\^,"""^ 
Luke  siiys  that  after  the  report  of  the  women,  Peter  ran  to 
the  tomb,  stooped  and  looked  in,  and  saw  the  linen  cloths  by 
themselves.  John,  in  his  more  minute  account,  adds  to  this 
the  statement  that  both  he  and  Peter  went  into  the  tomb,  and 
saw  the  linen  cloths  lying,  and  the  napkin  that  was  upon  his 
head  not  lying  with  the  lin(!n  cloths,  but  rolled  up  in  a 
place  by  itself  This  testimony  not  only  shows  that  the  body 
had  disappeared,  but  it  furnishes  strong  evidence  that  it  had  not 
been  removed  in  any  of  the  ways  suggested  by  unbelievers. 
If  some  of  the  disciples  had  taken  it  to  bury  it  in  Galilee, 
they  would  have  taken  it  with  the  shroud  still  around  it;  so 
of  the  gardener,  and  so  of  the  Jews.  Only  in  case  the  body 
went  forth  into  life,  would  it  have  been  divested  of  the  shroud 
in  which  all  dead  bodies  were  then  buried. 

Our    records    leave    it  in  some    uncertainty    whether  the  That  of 
Apostle  Peter,  or  Cleopas  and  his  unnamed  companion,  wasa"dhis 

I  '  I  '■  '  compau- 

the  first  among  the  male  disciples  to  see  Jesus  after  he  arose  ;»"iis, 
but  it  is  certain  the  latter  are  the  first  whose  testimony  is 
reported.  Of  the  appearance  to  Peter  nothing  is  said  except 
the  mere  fact.  Their  testimony  is  given  more  in  detail  than 
that  of  the  previous  group  of  witnesses.  In  substance  it  is 
this:  that  as  they  were  walking  to  Emmaus,  a  distance  of 
seven  and  a  half  miles  from  the  city,  Jesus  joined  them;  and 
appearing  as  a  stranger,  opened  conversation  by  asking  what 
communications  they  were  having  with  each  other  as  they 
walked  ;  and  on  learning,  he  jn-oceeded  to  show  them  out  or 
4utlu;  Scriptures  that  it  behoved  the  Christ  to  suffer  all  that 
^esus  had  suffered,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory.  They  say 
their  eyes  were  "  h(»lden  "  that  they  should  not  know  him; 
and  they  say  that  while  lu;  was  speaking  to  them  by  ihe  way 
their  hearts  were  i)urniug  within  them.  In  answer  to  his  first 
question,  they  said,  among  otluT  things:  "Certain  women  of 
our  company  amazed  us,  having  been  early  at   the  tomb;  and 


102  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

when  they  found  not  his  l)0(ly,  they  came,  saying  that  they 
had  also  seen  a  vision  of  angels  who  said  that  he  was  alive." 
In  this  they  confirm  what  is  said  of  the  testimony  of  the 
women.  They  add:  "And  certain  of  them  that  were  with  us 
went  to  the  tomb,  and  found  it  even  so  as  the  women  had 
said:  but  him  they  saw  not."  Now  this  la.st  statement  is 
entirely  independent  of  Luke's  statement  in  the  previous 
paragraph,  that  Peter  ran  to  ihe  tomb,  and  saw  the  linen 
cloths  by  themselves;  for  they  speak  in  the  plural  number, 
showing  that  they  refer  to  more  than  one  person.  Their 
reference  can  be  only  to  the  visit  of  Peter  and  John  de- 
scribed in  John's  Gospel,  and  yet  it  includes  that  of  Peter 
mentioned  in  Luke.  Here  is  an  undesigned  coincidence  of 
an  unmistakable  kind,  and  it  furnishes  strong  evidence  that 
the  story  of  Cleopns,  who  is  the  speaker,  is  reliable.  Ho  and 
his  companion  proceed  to  state  that  when  they  reached  their 
destination  the  supposed  stranger,  after  earnest  solicitation, 
went  in  with  them,  that  he  sat  down  to  eat,  took  bread, 
blessed,  broke,  and  gave  to  them,  and  then  vanished.  Ju.st 
before  he  vanished  they  recognized  him  as  Jesus,  their  eyes  at 
the  instant  being  "opened."  Who  could  have  invented  this 
story?  Who,  wishing  to  invent  a  story  of  having  seen  Jesus, 
could  possibly  have  put  it  into  this  shape?  And  wlio,  com- 
ing to  them  as  this  apparent  stranger  did,  could  possibly 
have  given  the  instruction  which  he  gave?  There  was  not 
another  man  on  earth  who  at  that  time  pos.sessed  the  ideas 
which  were  imparted.  A  conscious  restraint  upon  their  vis- 
ion, which  did  not  excite  their  suspicion  at  the  time,  but 
which  was  distinctly  remembered  after  the  interview  was 
ended,  accounts  for  their  failure  to  recognize  him  sooner.  If, 
on  this  account,  their  opportunity  to  know  him  was  not  so 
good  as  that  of  the  women,  the  consideration  just  mentioned.^ 
counterbalances  this  di.sadvantagc,  and  leaves  their  testimony 
free  from  doubt. 
The  testi-        The  tcstimoiiv  of  the  Twelve  is  presented  in  two  di.stinct 

mony  of  t    '     m  •         i  i      •  i  o 

,  the  forms  in   the  >«ew  1  cstament,  one   in   the  closing  chapters  ot 

Twelve,  °  * 

lutwo      the  Go.spels,  and  the  other  in  the  book  of  Acts.     The  former 
is  their  testiinon\  as  mere  men  to  the  one  fact  of  the  resnr- 


sus. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  153 

rection ;  the  latter,  their  tistimony  as  inspired  meu  to  the 
glorification  of  Christ  in  heaven,  which  involved  his  resur- 
rection as  a  necessary  antecedent.  We  shall  consider  the  two 
divisions  of  the  subject  separately. 

Their  testimony  as  found  in  the  Gospels  is  connected  with  ^^^1^^,.^,^ 
five  distinct  interviews  held  with  him — three  in  Jerusalem,  ^vmrje*^-^^ 
and  two  in  Galilee.  The  first  in  Jerusalem  is  described  by' 
Mark,  Luke  and  John,  but  omitted  by  Matthew.  All  told, 
the  details  are  these :  Ten  of  the  Apostles,  on  the  evening 
after  the  resurrection,  were  in  a  room  securely  closed  for  fear 
of  the  Jews.  The  two  from  Emmaus  had  been  admitted  and 
had  told  their  story,  which  was  received  with  discredit.  The 
company  were  "sitting  at  meat."  The  two  had  scarcely  com- 
pleted their  story  when  Jesus  stood  in  their  midst  without 
having  passed  through  the  door.  His  first  word  was,  "  Peace 
be  unto  you."  At  the  first  moment  they  were  "  terrified  and 
affrighted, and  supposed  that  they  beheld  a  spirit."  He  said: 
"  Why  are  ye  troubled;  and  wherefore  do  reasonings  arise  in 
your  hearts  ?  See  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself: 
handle  me,  and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye 
see  me  having."  He  also  showed  them  his  side.  They  still 
"disbelieved  for  joy,"  and  they  still  wondered,  till  he  asked  if 
they  had  anything  there  to  eat,  and  receiving  a  piece  of  broiled 
fish  he  ate  it  before  them.  They  were  then  glad  "  when  they 
saw  the  Lord,"  that  is,  when  they  saw  it  was  the  Lord  in 
reality.  He  upbraided  them  for  their  unbelief  and  hardness 
of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  who  had  seen  him 
after  he  was  risen.  He  closed  by  saying,  "  Peace  be  unto  you  : 
as  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  I  send  you."  And  when  he 
had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them  and  said  unto  them : 
"Receive  ye  the  Holy  Sj)irit:  whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven  unto  them  ;  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained."  How  he  disappeared  at  the  close  of  this  or  of 
any  other  interview  excej)t  the  last,  we  are  not  informed  ;  and 
this  is  one  of  th(!  marvels  of  tiiis  wontlerful  testimony.  It 
shows  that  the  witnesses  were  not  aiming  to  tell  a  long  story 
of  irreh^vanl  particulars,  but  to  state  siinj)ly  and  brii  fly  the 
facts  on  which  liiith  in  the  rcsm  rection  must  rest.     As  regards 


154  CREDiniLITY    OF    THE 

these  facts,  does  their  story  admit  of  the  possibility  that  they 
were  mistaken  ?  Cau  they  be  mistaken  as  to  the  fact  that  it 
Avas  Jesus  whom  they  had  seen,  with  whom  they  liad  con- 
versed, wdiose  wounds  in  the  hands  and  feet  and  side  they  had 
beheld?  Can  tlicy  have  been  mistaken  as  to  his  having 
entered  without  opening  the  door,  which  they  had  securely 
closed  for  fear  that  an  enemy  might  enter?  Surely  the  story 
must  be  a  series  of  conscious  falsehoods,  or  it  must  be  true: 
there  is  no  middle  ground, 
theirs  ^*  ^^^  second  interview,  which  occurred  just  one  week,  as 

terview  ^^'^  count  time,  after  the  first,  eleven  were  present,  and  this  in- 
terview seems  to  have  been  granted  especially  for  the  benefit 
of  Thomas,  who  was  not  present  at  the  first.  When  he  was 
told  of  the  first  interview  he  exclaimed :  "  Except  I  shall  see 
in  his  hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the 
print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  hand  into  his  side,  I  will  not 
believe."  His  idea  evidently  was  that  the  ten  had  seen  some 
one  whose  person  and  voice  so  closely  resembled  those  of 
Jesus  that,  like  twin  brothers,  they  could  not  be  distin- 
guished; and  as  for  the  wounds,  he  thought  that  his  breth- 
ren should  have  felt  them  as  well  as  seen  them  before 
believing.  The  wounds  he  Avould  admit  as  conclusive  evi- 
dence if  they  were  real,  for  he  kncM-  that  it  was  impossible 
for  another  man  perfectly  like  Jesus  in  every  other  partic- 
ular to  also  bear  those  wounds,  and  to  be  going  about  alive. 
The  eleven  were  in  the  same  room,  with  the  doors  closed 
as  before,  when  Jesus  a  second  time  stood  suddenly  in  their 
midst,  and  exclaimed  :  "Peace  be  unto  you.''  Then,  a(Mress- 
ing  Thomas,  he  says:  "Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  see  my 
hands;  and  reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  put  it  into  my  side: 
and  be  not  faithless,  but  believing."  Thomas  exclainiod,  "  My 
Lord  and  my  God ;"  but  whether  he  put  his  finger  and  his 
hand  into  the  wounds  or  not,  we  are  not  informed.  It  appears 
rather  that  the  sight  of  the  wounds  was  more  convincing  than 
he  had  su})posed,  and  that  this,  with  the  other  evidence  of  his 
eyes  and  his  ears,  was  enough.  Jesus  said  to  him  :  "  liecause 
thou  hast  se(!n,  thou  hast  believed:  blessed  are  they  who  have 
not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed."     This  cndfil  the  interview; 


SEW    TLi^TAMENT    liOOKS.  155 

and   surely  if  the   truth  is  tohl  about  it  there  was  no  chauce 
lor  Thomas  or  any  oi"  the  otliers  to  be  mistakeu. 

The  next  interview  was  with  seven  of  the  disciples,  includ- ^^^^j^ 
ing  six  of  the  Apostks.  It  was  on  the  lake*  siioro,  and  tarly  {^^^^g'^' 
in  the  morning.  They  were  in  their  boat  fishing,  and  he  was 
about  one  hundred  yards  distant  on  the  shore.  The  first 
evidence  that  it  was  he  was  the  tact  that  at  his  command  to 
drop  their  net  on  the  right  hand  side  of  the  l)oat,  they  caught 
an  immense  draught  of  ti.slies  where  they  had  fished  all  night 
and  caught  nothing.  This  caused  them  to  liasten  ashore. 
There  they  found  that  he  had  prepared  for  them  a  breakfnst 
of  broiled  fish  and  some  bread,  which  he  deliberately  dis- 
tributed among  them.  He  then  entered  into  an  elaborate 
conversation  with  Peter  in  their  presence,  at  the  close  of  which 
he  walked  away.  Here  there  was  none  of  the  wild  excite- 
ment which  arose  at  his  appearance  to  them  on  previous  occa- 
sions; but  all  was  calm  and  deliberate  from  beginning  to  end. 
No  company  of  men  ever  met  a  friend  unexpectedly  and  spent 
an  hour  in  conversation  with  him,  who  could  be  more  certain 
that  it  was  he  than  these  were  that  it  was  Jesus  with  whom 
they  conversed.     A  mistake  on  their  part  is  inconceivable. 

The  next  appearance  to  the  eleven  was  in  Galilee,  on  *'  thCj^^gj" 
mountain  where  he  had  appointed  them."  Matthew  says :  [ervi,!'J"' 
"  When  they  saw  him  they  worshiped  him  ;  but  some 
doubted."  If  this  last  remark  means,  as  it  has  been  construed 
by  some  skeptics,  that  they  doubted  all  through  the  interview, 
we  have  one  instance  in  which  the  evidence  was  not  convinc- 
ing to  all  who  were  present:  but  is  this  the  meaning?  The 
remainder  of  the  account  shows  that  it  is  not.  The  very  next 
clause  is,  "And  Jesus  came  to  them  and  spake  to  them," 
which  shows  tliat  at  the  moment  of  the  doubt  he  was  not  very 
near  to  them  and  had  not  yet  spoken  to  them.  There  is  n(j 
difference,  then,  between  the  doubt  on  this  occasion  and  on 
the  first,  when  they  thought  for  a  time  that  he  was  a  ghost. 
Let  us  observe,  too,  that  the  very  admission  of  this  doubt  is 
an  indubitable  mark  of  naturalness  and  truthfulness  in  the 
narrative;  for  it  could  certainly  not  have  been  thought  of  had 
it  not  been  true;  and  even   though   true,  it  would    havo   been 


156  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

omitted  if  the  author  had  been  more  anxious  to  make  the  case 
a  strong  one  than  to  tell  it  as  it  was.  After  coming  to  them 
as  stated  Jesus  said  to  them :  "All  authority  hath  been  given 
to  me,  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  make 
disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you  :  and 
lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
These  are  the  words  of  the  commission,  under  the  authority  of 
which  they  proceeded  to  labor  and  suffer  all  the  rest  of  their 
lives.  To  have  been  mistaken  in  thinking  that  they  had 
heard  them  would  have  been  a  fundamental  mistake ;  and  to 
have  been  doubtful  would  have  given  weakness  in  place  of 
the  strength  which  they  ever  afterward  exhibited.  Their  op- 
portunity for  both  seeing  and  hearing  was  too  good  to  allow 
the  supposition  that  they  could  have  been  mistaken. 
thciriifth  The  last  of  these  interviews  occurred  in  Jerusalem  on  the 
view"  day  of  the  ascension.  Its  incidents  must  be  collected  from 
the  last  six  verses  of  Mark,  verses  45-53  of  the  last  chapter 
of  Luke,  and  verses  4-11  of  the  first  chapter  of  Acts.  He 
pointed  out  more  fully  than  before  the  propliecies  which  must 
needs  be  fulfilled  in  him;  and  he  opened  their  minds  that 
they  might  understand  these  Scriptures.  He  showed  them 
particularly  that  his  death  and  resurrection  were  in  accordance 
with  these  Scriptures,  and  that  ''  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  to  all  the  nations,  begin- 
ning at  Jerusalem."  He  commanded  them  to  go  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  and  promised 
them  power  to  work  signs  and  wonders  in  his  name.  He 
charged  them,  however,  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem  until 
they  should  be  clothed  with  power  from  on  high,  which  he  ex- 
plains by  the  words:  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
not  many  days  hence;"  and  he  calls  thi.s  "the  promise  of  the 
Father."  They  were  bold  enough  to  ask  him,  "  Dost  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?"  but  were  told  that 
it  was  not  for  them  to  know  times  and  seasons.  They  were 
told  the  order  in  which  they  should  carry  their  message  to 
different  communities:   to  Jerusalem    first,  then  to  Jiidea  and' 


NEW    TESTA MKNT    BOOKS.  J  57 

Samaria,  and  then  to  all  the  earth.  While  this  conver-iation 
was  in  progress  he  had  led  them  from  the  city  out  across  the 
Kedron,  up  the  slope  of  the  mount  of  Olives,  and  past  the 
nearer  summit  of  this  mountain  to  the  vicinity  of  Bethany; 
and  as  he  concluded  he  lifted  up  hi.s  hands  to  bless  them,  and 
was  himself  lifted  up  till  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight.  They  .stood  gazing  into  the  sky  where  he  had  disap- 
peared, until  two  angels  stood  by  them,  and  told  them  that  he 
would  return  in  like  manner  as  they  had  seen  him  go  into 
heaven.  Now  here  is  the  most  protracted  interview  of  all 
those  described  in  our  books;  it  was  the  most  free  and  uncon- 
.strained  on  the  part  of  the  Eleven ;  and  even  were  there 
ground  to  suppose  in  previous  interviews  too  great  excitement 
on  the  part  of  the  latter  for  reliable  observation,  there  cer- 
tainly can  be  none  in  this.  We  conclude  that  all  these 
accounts  were  given  by  men  and  women  guilty  of  conscious 
falsehood,  or  that  they  all  describe  real  events.  The  honesty 
of  the  witne.sses  precludes  the  former  alternative,  and  we  have 
therefore  no  choice  but  to  accept  the  latter. 

The  testimony  of  the  Apostles  as  given  in  Acts  begins  ^J'^^^Jit®''' 
with  the  scenes  of  Pentecost;  for  that  which  we  have  ji'st""gj^ 
considered  from  the  first  chapter  is  a  mere  supplement  to 
Luke's  Gospel.  On  the  next  Pentecost  after  the  resurrection, 
the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  was  first  given  to  the  public; 
and  it  was  given  i)y  all  the  Twelve;  for  they  all  stood  up 
with  Peter,  and  he  was  their  spokesman.  Peter  approached 
the  testimony  by  an  argument  from  the  prophecies  of  David, 
intended  to  remove  from  the  minds  of  his  Jewish  hearers  the 
antecedent  improbability  of  the  resurrection  (verses  22-31), 
and  then  he  presented  the  testimony  of  himself  and  his  com- 
panions in  the.se  words:  "This  Jesus  did  God  raise  uj>, 
whereof  we  are  all  witnes-ses."  This  testimony  to  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  is  subordinated  in  the  sermon  to  that  con- 
cerning the  glorification  of  .Tesus  in  heaven.  The  aeeount 
shows  that  Peter  was  now  <jiuilified  to  speak  on  this  latter 
subject ;  for  we  not  only  have  Fiuke's  statement  that  he  and  all 
the  Twelv«!  were  now  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  spoke  in 
all  the  touirncs  known   lo  the  asscmbh'd   inultiliide.  ImiI.  what 


ly 
Peiitc- 


158  CREDIIULITV    OF    THE 

is  more  to  the  point  of  our  i)re.sent  argument,  wo  have  the 
testimony  of  Peter  and  those  for  whom  he  spoke,  to  the 
same  effect.  He  cxphiins  the  phenomenon  which  had  aston- 
ished the  multitude  by  telling  them  that  it  was  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Joel's  propliecy,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be 
poured  forth  upon  men  so  that  they  should  prophesy  (16-18); 
and  he  solemnly  declares  to  them  that  this  gift  of  the  Spirit 
had  been  sent  down  from  heaven  by  Jesus,  who  had  been 
exalted  by  the  right  hand  of  God  and  had  taken  a  seat  on  his 
throne  (32-36).  Now,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  audience  being  mistaken  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
gift  bestowed  on  the  Twelve,  it  is  certain  that  they  could  not 
be  mistaken  in  thinking  that  they  heard  them  speaking  in  tiie 
various  tongues  with  which  they  were  familiar.  There  is 
perhaps  nothing  in  human  exj)erience  in  which  a  man  is  less 
liable  to  mistake  than  in  recognizing  his  native  language 
when  he  unexpectedly  hears  it  spoken.  And  it  is  equally 
certain  that  the  Apostles  were  not  mistaken  in  thinking  them- 
selves the  suljjects  of  this  phenomenon.  It  w^as  a  matter  of 
consciousness  to  them ;  so  here  again  we  have  a  case  in  which 
the  alternative  is  to  charge  these  honest  witnesses  with  a  most> 
stupendous  fraud,  or  to  confess  not  only  that  Jesus  arose  from 
the  dead,  but  that  he  was  exalted  to  such  a  position  and 
authority  in  heaven  as  to  send  forth  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
continue  the  work  whicli  he  had  himself  begun  on  the  earth. 
Umony^  This  testimony  was  repeated  again  and  again,  and  it  was  the 
peated!^  chief  burden  of  the  Apostolic  preaching  to  the  unbelieving 
world,  as  well  as  the  chief  cause  of  all  the  persecutions  which 
they  endured.  See  Acts  iii.  13-16,  20,  21;  iv.  1,  2,  18-20; 
V.  17,  18.  30-32,  40;  x.  38-42.  It  is  all  epitomised  in  the 
closing  statement  of  Mark's  (iospel  :  "  And  they  went  forth 
and  preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them  and 
confirming  the  word  by  the  signs  tnat  followed."     When  our 

ThisiMt  first  three  Gospels  were  written,  this  work   was  in   full   pro- 
form  of  t^  '  * 

mon '  th  S''^'''''»>  ^"^  ^^^  strongest  evidence  to  the  people  that  Jesus  had 

ftt'^'thn*^'*'^  ri.sen  from  the  dead  was  not  the  personal  testimony  of  those 

time,        ^yY^^y  ^rj^^y  i^jjj^  between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  but 

the  testimony   of  the  Twelve   who   were  going  about  among 


NEW    TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  159 

the  people  proclaiming  Jesus  as  the  gh>rifie<l  ruler  of  heaven 
and  earth,  living  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  by  his  own 
power  perrorming  the  signs,  wonders  and  miracles  which  they 
continnally    Vvrouelit    in    his    name.     This   accounts    for    thennditac- 

11  />     1  •  counts 

raeagerness  of  the  evidence  of  the  resurrection  arrayed  in  theforthe 

®  ^  •'  brevity 

ck>sing  chapters  of  the  Gospels — meagerness  in  the  number  °^  ^^'^^^j'*- 
of  appearances  of  Jesus  reported  in  each,  but  not  in  the  con- {^J^g^^^' 
ehisiveness  of  the  evidence  which  is  given.     In  the  presence 
of  more  convincing  and  comprehensive  evidence,  it  was  not 
importaHt  to  elaborate  that  which  was  less  so. 

In  addition  to  all  that  we  have  cited  from  Acts  and  theAfi'^'- 

tional  tes- 

Gospels,  wo  have  separate  testimony  from  Peter  and  John  in'i"io">"/ 

'        ^  ^  •'  I'eter  iiiid 

their  own  writings.  In  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  there  are''°''°- 
ri'j)eated  references  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  an  estab- 
lished fact,  and  to  his  present  living  power  in  heaven.  See  i. 
3,4,  7,  8,  12,  21;  iii.  18,  21;  iv.  11,  13.  He  gives  none 
of  the  details  of  the  interviews  with  Jesus  by  which  he  had 
gained  a  certainty  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection;  but  he  iu- 
diiectly  affirms  what  Luke  .says  of  him  in  Acts,  by  saying 
that  he  and  others  had  preached  the  gospel  "  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  .seiit  forth  from  heaven"  (i.  12),  thus  affirming  his 
inspiration,  and  his  consequent  power  to  speak  authoritatively 
of  things  in  the  heavenly  world.  The  Apostle  John,  in  the 
opening  of  his  first  Epistle,  bears  the  following  testimony: 
"That  which  wa.s  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard, 
which  we  have  seen  witii  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked 
upon,  and  our  hands  have  handled,  of  the  Word  of  life;  (for 
the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  .seen  it,  and  bear  witness, 
and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life,  wliich  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us;)  that  which  we  have  seen 
and  heard  declare  "sve  unto  you,  that  you  also  may  have 
fellowship  with  us;  and  truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the 
Father,  ;\u(\  with  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  And  these  things 
write  we  unto  you,  that  your  joy  may  be  full."  No  doubt 
there  is  reference  here  to  the  manifestation  of  the  "  Word 
of  life"  l)(»th  in  the  natural  life  of  Je.sus,  and  in  his  life 
subsequent  to  tiie  resurrection;  but  the  reference  is  more 
j)artieularly  to  thr    latter;    for    otherwise    (he    employing    of 


160  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

ears,  eyes  and  hands  iu  identifying  him  would  not  be 
so  insisted  on.  The  passage  is  a  reiteration  by  John  iu 
person  of  the  testimony  given  in  the  gospels ;  and  it 
renders  the  possibility  of  having  been  mistaken  completely 
oat  of  the  question.  In  the  opening  statements  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse, the  same  Apostle  gives  fresh  testimony  by  describ- 
ing a  new  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him,  which  occurred  after 
the  close  of  all  the  testimony  given  by  the  other  Apostles,  and 
after  their  death.  He  declares  that  Jesus  appeared  to  him  in 
a  glorified  form  whick  he  minutely  describes,  showing  that  he 
saw  him  distinctly ;  that  notwithstanding  (he  glory  of  his 
form  he  was  "like  unto  the  Son  of  man;"  that  he  himself, 
overpowered  by  the  sight,  fell  at  his  feet  as  a  dead  man;  that 
Jesus  came  to  him,  laid  his  "  right  hand "  upon  liira,  and 
declared  himself  to  be  he  who  was  dead,  but  is  now  alive  for- 
evermore;  and  that  he  then  dictated  in  an  audible  voice 
seven  epistles  to  seven  of  the  churches  in  Asia  (i.  9-18).  This 
testimony,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  admitted  by  infidels  to  be 
the  genuine  testimony  of  John;  and  as  it  is  admitted  that  he 
was  an  honest  writer,  the  only  question  about  It  is.  Can  he 
have  been  mistaken?  We  think  that  every  unbiased  mind  in 
the  world  would  promptly  answer  that  the  story  was  either 
made  up  from  the  imagination  of  the  writer,  or  it  describes  a 
reality.  This  is  the  concluding  section  of  the  testimony  of 
the  original  witnesses,  as  given  in  the  New  Testament.  Let 
the  reader  judge,  as  he  will  answer  to  God,  whether  it  estab- 
lishes as  a  fact  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead,  and 
his  ascension  to  the  right  hand  of  God  in  heaven. 
uonaites-  '^^^  testimony  of  Paul  given  in  his  Epistles  furnishes  none 
prJi"^"'^^  t^^'^''  details  by  which  we  can  judge  whether  he  or  the 
other  witnesses  of  whom  he  speaks  could  have  been  mistaken; 
but  it  is  a  reiteration  of  the  main  fact  in  very  positive  terms. 
He  presents  the  witnesses  in  solid  array  a.s  follows:  "I  de- 
livered to  you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that 
he  was  buried  ;  and  that  he  hath  been  raised  the  third  day 
according  to  the  S('ri|)tiir('s  ;  imd  lh:i(  lie  Mppcart'd  to  Cephas; 
then  to  the  Twelve;   then    hi;  appeared  U)  above  live   hundred 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  161 

brethren  at  once,  of  whom  the  greater  part  remain  until  now, 
but  some  are  fjillen  asleep;  then  he  appeared  to  James;  then 
to  all  the  Apostles;  ami  last  of  all  he  appeared  to  me  also" 
(I.  Cor.  XV.  ;3-8).  Like  the  Gospel  writers,  he  selects  for 
mention  a  certain  number  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus,  and 
omits  the  others;  but  he  mentions  more  of  them  than  any 
other  writer,  and  he  mentions  one — that  to  James — omitted 
by  all  the  others.  This  passage  shows  that  he  had  already 
made  the  Corinthians  familiar  with  this  evidence,  having  made 
it  the  foremost  subject  matter  of  his  preaching,  and  this  ac- 
counts for  the  absence  of  those  details  which  are  so  carefully 
given  in  the  Gospels  and  in  Acts.  But  the  chief  value  of 
Paul's  testimony  in  the  Epistles  is  found  in  what  he  says  of 
the  powers  which  he  had  received  from  the  risen  Christ. 
Whatever  may  be  thought  of  his  being  mistaken  about  mir- 
acles wrought  by  other  persons,  he  could  not  be  mistakeu  in 
his  claim  to  work  them  himself.  On  this  point  his  testimony 
is  explicit.  To  the  Romans  he  says:  "I  will  not  dare  to 
speak  of  any  things  save  only  those  which  Christ  hath  wrought 
through  me,  for  the  obedience  of  the  Gentiles,  by  word  and 
deed,  in  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  so  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto 
Illyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ"  (Rom. 
XV.  18,  19).  Here,  by  "  the  power  of  signs  and  wonders"  and 
"  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  unmistakably  means  the 
miraculous  powers  exercised  by  the  Apostles.  To  the  Cor- 
inthians he  says:  ''Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  wrought 
among  you  in  all  patience  by  signs,  wonders  and  mighty 
works"  (TI.  Cor.  xii.  12).  Here  there  are  three  things  to  be 
noted :  first,  that  his  expression  for  the  miracles  which  he  had 
wrought  is  precisely  that  which  was  used  by  Pe*er  in  his 
sermon  on  Pentecost  for  tlic  miracles  of  Jesus ;  that  is,  signs, 
wonders  and  mighty  works,  whi(^h  shows  that  he  speaks  of  the 
same  class  of  works;  second,  that  these  were  then  known  to 
the  Corinthians  as  "the  slgus  of  an  apostle;"  that  is,  the  in- 
dispensable proofs  that  a  man  was  an  apo.stlc,  and  that  all  the 
Apostles  were  known  to  be  workers  of  such  miracles;  third, 
that  this  language  was  used   in  writin«i;  to  a  people  who  knew 


1G"J        CUEDIJUMTV    OV    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

whether  he  had  wrought  such  miracles  among  them,  aud  a 
part  of  whom  were  his  personal  enemies,  denying  that  lie  was 
an  apostle;  uuder  such  circumstances  it  is  inconceivable  that 
he  should  have  claimed  to  work  miracles  among  them  if  he 
had  not.  We  have  this  evidence  in  addition  to  the  admitted 
veracity  of  Paul,  that  he  wrought  these  miracles  in  the  name 
of  Christ,  and  that  therefore  Christ  was  not  only  alive,  but  in 
the  possession  of  infinite  power. 
siveiiess  ^^^  testimonies  which  we  have  now  considered  combine 

evidtMice.  ^^  prove  that  Jesus  certainly  arose  from  tlu;  dead,  and  as- 
cended up  to  heaven.  In  thus  establishing  as  real  the  great 
miracle  of  the  New  Testament  on  which  all  the  others  depend 
for  their  value,  all  ground  and  all  motive  for  denying  the 
latter  are  removed.  If  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  it  was  be- 
cause he  was  what  his  disciples  represent  him  to*  be,  the  Son 
of  God;  and  from  this  it  follows  that  he  was  possessed  of  all 
power. 
whole  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  that  we  go  hack  over  the  ac- 

fo'mira-*^  counts  of  miraclcs  in  the  Gospels,  and  look  into  the  evidence 
cj\^ere'd.   foF  thcsc  in  detail;  the  whole  ground  is  now  covered,  and  we 
are  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the  New  Testament  writers 
are  credible  when  writing  about  the    miraculous  as  well  as 
when  writing  of  the  natural  and  the  ordinary. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


THE   MESSIAHSHIP  OF  JESUS. 


The  Jews  of  iho  time  of  Josus,  and  after,  bolievctl  that  in  •^|',^.^pgg. 
the  writings  ol'  Moses  and  the  prophets  there  were  predictions  j^^sf^^'* 
concernint;'  a  great  ruler  and  deliverer  yet  to  come,  called  the 
Messiali  in  their  language,  the  Christ  in  Greek.  They  ex- 
pected him,  as  we  have  stated  in  a  former  chapter,  to  be  a  son 
of  David,  to  restore  the  kingdom  of  David,  to  settle  all  diffi- 
cult questions  of  doctrine  and  worship,  and  to  abide  forever 
(pages  22,  23).  This  expectation  was  embodied  in  the  remark 
of  Philip  concerning  Jesus:  "We  have  found  him  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, the  son  of  Joseph"  (Jno.  i.  45);  and  it  is  alluded  to  in 
the  remark  concerning  Simeon,  tliat  i,e  was  looking  for  the 
consolation  of  Israel ;  and  in  the  statement  that  the  aged  Anna 
"  s|u)ke  of  him  to  all  that  were  looking  for  the  redemption  of 
Jerusalem''  (Luke  ii.  38).  The  same  expectation  and  hope 
are  more  fully  and  beautifully  expressed  in  the  song  of 
Zacharias : 

Blessed  be  the  Lord  the  God  of  Israel ; 

For  he  hath  visited  and  wrought  redemption  for  his  people, 

and  hath  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us 
In  the  house  of  his  servant  David 
(As  he  spake  hy  the  month  of  his  holy  prophets  which  have 

been  since  the  world  hcuran), 
Salvation  from  our  enemies,  and  from  all  that  hate  us; 
To  show  mercy  toward  our  fathers, 
And  to  remember  his  holy  covenant. 
The  oath  which  he  swore  unto  Abraham  our  father, 
To  grant  unto  us  that  we  being  delivered  out  of  the  hands 

of  our  enemies, 


164  CREDIBILITY   OF   THE 

Should  serve  him  without  fear 

In  holiness  and  righteousness  before  him  all  our  days. 

(Luke  i.  ()8-75.) 

Theques-  When  John  the  Baptist  appeared  on  the  banks  of  the 
whether  Jordan,  and  with  preaching  of  unprecedented  power  stirred 
^^-  the  hearts  and    consciences  of  the  whole  people,  we  are  told 

that  they  "  were  in  expectation,  and  reasoned  in  their  hearts 
concerning  John,  whether  haply   he  were  the  Christ"  (Luke 
iii.  15);  and  the   leaders  in  Jerusalem  went  so  far  as  to  send 
to  him  priests  and  Levites  to  ask   him   pointedly  this  very 
Jj^^'^'^'s- question  (John  i.  19,  20).     So  when  John  had  passed  away, 
7esus'\vas^'"<^  Jcsus  cugrosscd  the  popular  attention,  during  the  whole 
^^''  of  his  ministry  the  great  and  absorbing  question  w^as,  Is  he 

the  Christ?  True,  the  question  whether  he  was  the  Son  of 
God  became  prominent  also,  and  especially  toward  the  close 
of  his  career;  but  the  former  was  ever  the  foremost  question 
of  the  two.  In  the  course  of  our  discussion  we  have  reversed 
this  order ;  for  to  us  the  question  of  his  sonship  stands  fore- 
most both  in  importance  and  in  the  oi-der  in  which  we  most 
naturally  consider  it.  Having  settled  this,  we  have  prepared 
the  way  for  the  other  question,  and  have  made  its  settlement 
a  very  easy  task. 

The  question  of  the  Messiahship  turns  on  the  fulfillment  in 
^^uerfby  Jesus  of  thc  predictions  concerning  the  Messiah.  He  claimed 
^^"*'  while  he  was  living  that  there  were  such  predictions,  and  that 
they  were  fulfilled  in  him,  saying  on  one  occasion :  "  Ye 
search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have 
eternal  life;  and  these  are  they  that  testify  of  me."  .  .  . 
"  Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  Father:  there  is  one 
that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses  on  whom  ye  have  set  your 
hope.  For  if  ye  believed  Moses  yc  would  believe  me;  for  he 
wrote  of  me  "  (Juo.  '•.  39,  45).  After  his  resurrection,  in  con- 
versations with  his  disciples  he  taught  the  same  thing  with 
greater  fullness.  When  addressing  the  two  on  the  way  to 
Emraaus,  "beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets, 
ho  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scrijjtures  the  things  concern 
ing  himself;"  and  to  the  Twelve  he  said:  "These  are  niv 
words  which    I  spake  to  you  while  T  was  yet  with  you,  how 


How  the 
question 


NEW    TKSTAMKNT    ROOKS.  *  16o 

that  all  things  must  needs  be  fulHllecl  which  are  written  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms,  concern- 
ing me"  (Luke  xxiv.  27,  44).  This  was  also  the  leading {y.^^y 
theme  with  all  the  apostles  when  addressing  Jewish  audiences.  '"■'^'^^: 
IVter,  in  his  second  recorded  discourse,  after  speaking  of  the 
sufferings  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  says:  ''But  the  things 
which  God  foreshowed  l)v  the  mouth  of  all  the  j)r(»pl'.ets,  that 
his  Chri<t  should  sutter,  lie  thus  fulfilled."  ..."  Yea,  and 
all  the  prophets  from  Samuel,  and  those  who  follow  after,  as 
many  as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of  these  days"  (Acts  iii. 
18,  24).  Thus  the  Apostles  spoke  in  Jerusalem  at  the  begin- «'»'phow 
ning;  and  in  Kome,  at  the  close  of  the  record  of  apostolic 
preaching,  we  learn  of  Paul  that  when  he  had  gathered  the 
unbelieving  Jews  of  the  city  together  in  great  numbers,  "he 
expounded  the  matter,  testifying  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
persuading  them  concerning  Jesus,  both  from  the  law  of 
Moses  and  from  the  prophets,  from  morning  till  evening" 
(Acts  xxviii.  23).  These  citations  show  that  it  was  the  settled 
doctrine  of  both  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  that  many  predictions 
in  the  Old  Testament  written  concerning  tho  promised  Mes- 
siah were  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  thus  proving  him  to  be  the  Christ. 

There  is  no  attempt  by  any  of  the  New  Testament  writers  The  pre- 
to  cite  all  the  predictions  thus  fulfilled.     While  the  general  many; 

,  .  1  ,        thecita- 

terms  which  they  employ  imply  that  there  is  a  large  number  tious few. 
of  them,  the  number  which  they  quote  is  comparatively  small. 
Matthew  deals  more  in  this  kind  of  argument  than  any  other, 
but  even  he  leavis  the  specifications  chiefly  to  the  intelligence 
of  the  reader  A\'hile  Matthew  cites  many  along  the  line  of 
incidents  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  beginning  with  genealogy  and 
the  scenes  of  the  infancy,  the  author  of  Hebrews  cites  chiefly 
those  respecting  his  exalted  dignity  in  heaven  as  the  I^ord  of 
angels  and  the   high    priest  for  men.     But  Jesus,  Peter  and  Those 

r,  •  •  .  .  .  most  em- 

Paul,  in  their  j>reaching,  concentrate  their  attention  »»u   those ri>"''*zed. 

respecting  his  death,  resurrecting  and  exaltation  ;  and  as  the.se 

have  been  proved  to  be  realities   by   our   previous  course  of 

evidence,  it  is  sufficient   for  our  purpose  now  to  show   that 

tlicse  were  characteristics  *){"  th"   Christ,  in   order   t(»   identify 

Jesus  as  that  pcrMinage. 


IGG  *  CREDIBILITY    OF    THE 

Troofsad-  ^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  sermoi),  Peter  rested  the  whole  of  his  argument 
bv'i'cter  ^^^'  ^''^  Messiaship  of  Jesus  on  the  fulfillment  of  two  predic- 
tions by  David.  The  first  is  quoted  from  the  sixteenth 
Psalm,  in  the  words,  following  the  Septuagiut:  "Moreover, 
my  flesh  also  shall  rest  in  hope :  because  thou  wilt  not  leave 
my  soul  in  hades,  neither  wilt  thou  give  thy  Holy  One  to  see 
corruption.  Thou  raadest  known  to  me  the  ways  of  life; 
thou  shalt  make  me  full  of  gladness  with  thy  countenance." 
This  is  certainly  a  prediction  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead ; 
for  if  one's  soul  is  not  left  in  hades,  and  his  flesh  does  not  see 
corruption,  it  is  because  the  soul  and  body  are  brought 
together  again  by  a  resurrection.  But  the  Psalmist  could  not 
have  been  speaking  of  himself,  as  Peter  correctly  argues;  for 
his  flesh  saw  corruption,  and  his  soul  has  remained  in  liades. 
The  soul  of  Jesus,  however,  did  not  remain  in  hades,  but 
returned  into  his  body  before  the  latter  saw  corruption;  and 
this  is  true  of  no  other  eminent  person  ;  consequently,  he  is 
the  person  of  whom  the  prophet  spoke.  He  is  the  Christ  of 
prophecy. 

The  second  prediction  is  taken  from  the  one  hundred  and 
tenth  Psalm,  in  the  words:  ''The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  Sit 
thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  foot- 
stool." This  Peter  had  just  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  taken  place  with  Jesus,  and  certainly  no 
other  human  being  ever  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God;  con- 
sequently this  is  another  proof  that  Jesus  is  the  person  of 
!5'Jo^^^a<*- whom  the  prophets  did  write.  Paul,  in  his  sermon  at  Anti- 
by  Paul.  Qgj^  ^f  Pisidia,  uses  the  former  of  these  two  predictions  in  the 
same  way.  He  says :  "  As  concerning  that  he  raised  him  up 
from  the  dead,  now  no  more  to  return  to  corruption,  he  hath 
spoken  on  this  wise,  I  will  give  you  the  holy  and  sure  lucrcies 
of  David.  Because  he  saitii  also  in  another  psalm,  Thou 
wilt  not  give  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  For  David, 
after  he  had  in  his  own  generation  served  the  counsel  of  (Jod, 
fell  on  sleep,  and  was  laid  unto  his  fathers,  and  saw  corru})- 
tion  :  but  he  whom  God  raised  up  saw  no  corruption"  (Acts 

S':ff>-     .  xiii.  .'34-36).     On  these  iwo  i)rfdicti(>ns,  then,  together  with 
clency  of  /  '  . 

these.       many   others  which   readily  occurred    to  their   hearers,  these 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  167 

two  apostles  rested  the  argument  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
in  connection  with  other  and  still  stronger  proofs  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God;  and  these  are  sufficient  to  make  out  the  case. 
Indeed,  if  the  Jews,  or  any  other  people  who  believe  in  the 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  convinced  that  Jesus 
rose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God  to 
reign  as  a  king,  they  need  no  other  or  better  proof  that  he  is 
also  the  Messiah  of  the  prophets.  It  is  for  this  reason,  doubt- 
less, tiiat  the  apostles,  after  proving  the  former  proposition, 
paid  comparatively  little  attention  to  the  proof  of  the  latter. 

We  are  now  prcj)ared  to  close  this  i)art  of  our  inquiry,  with  ^>'^^^]^' 
the  conclusion  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living '•^'^^'"'■'• 
God,  and  that  therefore  the  system  of  religion  which  he  estab- 
lished in  the  earth  is  of  divine  origin  and  authority.  The 
other  questions  of  credibility  with  which  we  started  out 
(page  1,2),  having  reference  to  the  thorough  reliability  of  the 
record  which  we  have  of  his  sayings,  and  of  the  revelations 
which  the  apostles  claim  to  have  received,  remain  to  be  dis- 
cussed in  Part  Fourth, 


PART   IV 

INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TEST2VMENT 

BOOKS. 


PART  lY, 

THE    mSPIKATION   OF  THE   NEW  TES- 
TAMENT  BOOKS. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  PROMISES  OF  JESUS. 


Tke  term  iuspiratiou,  when  applied  to  the  sacred  books,  Jpspira- 
designates  the  characteristic  which  they  are  supposed  to  have  ""^d- 
derived  from  the  iuspiratiou  of  their  Avriters.  When  applied 
to  the  writers,  it  mraus  the  supposed  miraculous  action  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  their  minds,  by  which  liiey  were  caused  to 
write  as  God  willed.  The  term  in  its  substantive  form  is  not 
used  in  the  New  Testament;  but  it  occurs  in  its  adjective 
form  (f)i6zi'S'j(TTo^,  God-inspired),  and  in  this  form  it  is  ap- 
plied to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  (II.  Tim.  iii.  16). 

The  inquiry  whether  the  New   Testament   books  possess  H"^  to 

1        •'  i  prose- 

this  characteristic,  may  be  prosecuted  in  two  ways:  first,  by [^'^^^^[J'® 
considering  what  the  writers  themselves  have  said  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  and  second,  by  considering  the  question  whether  such 
books  could  have  been  written  by  uninspired  men.  We  have 
laid  the  basis  for  the  first  in  Part  Third,  by  finding  that 
these  writers  are  thoroughly  credible  in  all  their  statements. 
Whatever  they  say,  therefore,  on  the  subject  now  before  us  we 
can  believe  implicitly,  and  wc  will  take  up  this  branch  of  the 

inquiry  first. 

cm) 


172  INSPIRATION    OF   THE 

oHnsp'i-'^         If    there    is   any    kind   or   degree    of    inspiration    which 
trnde-*^"  believers  mnst  affirm  and  defend,  it  is  that  which  is  sot  forth 
fended,    jjj  ^j^g  New  Testament  books  themselves.     It  would  be  irrele- 
vant to  the  subject  of  Evidences  of  Christianity,  ;ind  useless 
in  itself,  to  discuss  any  other.     Rut  before  we  can  determine 
whether  to  defend  it  or  not,  we  must  ascertain  precisely  what 
ft°^t'°b  **'  ^^'     ^^^^  ^^  ^^  ^^  done,  not,  as  many  writers  on  the  subject 
known,     seem  to  have  supposed,  by  formulating  a  theory  of  inspiration, 
and  then  searching  the  Scriptures  to  find  support  for  it;  but 
•  by  studying  the  Scripture  presentation  of  the   subject,  and 
^^^Ypj^^g^  accepting  that  as  our  theory.     Now  it  so  happens  that  the 
in  N.  T.    subject  is  presented  in   the  New   Testament  in   a  way  quite 
favorable  to  successful  investigation.     We  are  furnished,  first, 
with  a  number  of  promises  of  inspiration  made  by  Jesus  to 
the  Apostles;  second, with  some  very  explicit  statements  made 
by  the  Apostles  and  others,  which  show  the  fulfillment  of  these 
promises;  and  third,  with  many  facts  and  statements  which 
help  to  define  the  limits   of  the  inspiration    thus  set    forth. 
We  shall  consider  these  in  the  order  in  which  we  have  named 
them. 
The  first         The  first  promise  of  Jesus  on  the  subject  is  quoted   by 

Droiuisci  V  X  tf 

Matthew  in  the  following  words:  "But  beware  of  men:  for 
they  will  deliver  you  up  to  councils,  and  in  their  synagogues 
will  they  scourge  you;  yea,  and  before  governors  and  kings 
shall  ye  be  brought  for  my  sake,  for  a  testimony  to  them  and 
the  Gentiles.  But  when  they  deliver  you  up,  be  not  anxious 
how  or  what  ye  shall  speak :  for  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that 
hour  what  yc  shall  speak.  For  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but 
the  Spirit  of  your  Fatlier  that  speaketh  in  you  (x.  17-20). 
The  same  promise  is  quoted  by  Mark  and  Luke,  with  the  varia- 
tion in  the  latter,  "for  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  teach  you  in 
that  very  hour  what  ye  ought  t<»  suy  "  (Mark  xiii.  11;  Luke 
iis/uii      xii.  12).     Here  we  have  first  a  |)rohii)ition,  "  Be  not  anxious"; 

fiKniti-  ^  '       .  <•  i 

tance;  and  it  has  reference  to  two  things:  first,  how  they  shall 
speak;  and  second,  what  they  shall  speak.  Under  "  how  "  is 
included  the  manner  of  speech;  that  is,  the  style,  diction  and 
arrangement;  under  "  what,"  the  matter;  that  is,  the  thoughts 
tind   fads.     They  are  told   not  to   be  anxious    about    any    of 


uey. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  173 

these,  even  when  their  lives  depended  on  what  they  would 
sav.  It  is  impossible  that  mortal  man  should  be  free  from 
auxictv  under  such  circumstances,  without  supernatural  aid. 
It  foll(»\vs  that  the  reason  which  Jesus  proceeds  to  give  for 
this  prohibition  is  the  only  oue  that  could  be  given  by  a 
rational  being.  It  is  this:  "  For  it  shall  be  given  you  in  that 
hour  what  ye  shall  speak  :  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you;"  "for  the  Holy 
Spirit  shall  teach  you  in  that  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say." 
This  assurance  would  i)e  sufficient  to  free  them  from  anxiety,  i^*^. 
if  they  could  only  implicitly  believe  it;  but  what  an  implicit 
faith  it  required!  H(av  diifereut  from  the  feeble  faith  which 
now  staggers  at  the  thought  that  such  a  promi.se  as  this  was 
ever  realized  ! 

In  the  words,  "  It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of ^^"^,gjjj^. 
your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you,"  we  have  an  obvious  in-''""- 
stauce  of  the  well  known  Hebrew  idiom  by  which  in  compari- 
sons the  absolute  negative  is  put  for  the  relative.  They  did 
speak,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  to 
teach  them  what  they  ought  to  say;  but  as  their  speaking  was 
to  be  controlled  by  the  Spirit  in  them,  it  was  not  they  only  or 
chiefly  that  spoke,  but  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  second  promise    is  reported  by  Luke  alone.     Jesus, 

after  telling   the  disciples  in  his  prophetic  discourse  on  the^cond 

destruction  of  Jerusalem,  that  tliey  sliould  be  delivered  up  to  *""*'™^^*^ " 

synagogues  and  prisons,  and  be  brought  before  governors  and 

kings,  continues :  "Settle   it  therefore  in  your  hearts,  not  to 

meditate  beforehand    how   to  answer:   for  I   will  give  you  a 

mouth  and  wisdom  which  all   your  adversaries  shall   not  be 

able  to  withstand  or  to  gainsay"  (xxi.  12-15).     Here  the  ])ro- 

hibition  advances  from  anxiety  to  premeditation.     A  coura-i.',^^,*^',']^'^^ 

geous  man,  after  proper  premeditation,  might   make  a  speech  ^'''" '"^'' 

on   the  effect  of  which  his  life  depended,  with  comparative 

freedom    from    anxiety;   but    who   could  enter  upon   .such   adinioity 

.  .  .  ^f  '^'e 

speech  without  anxiety  and  at  the  same  time  without  nre-r""''*' 

•       ^  •  ■  based  on 

meditation?     The  Apostles  were  not  only  told  to  do  this,  but'*- 
the  order  is  made  emphatic  by  the  words  with  which  it  is  in- 
troduced :    "Settle  it  therefore  in  your  hearts."    These  words, 


174  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

while  emphasizing  the  order,  suggest  also  that  it  was  to  be  the 

settled  purpose  of  their  hearts  to  carry  the  order  into  actual 

and  how  ^gg      Such  an  Order  would  have  been  but  idle  breath  to  these 

made 

P^ig*'""  men,  had  it  not  been  accompanied  with  the  only  assurance 
which  could  possibly  make  it  practicable,  the  assurance  that 
Christ  would  give  them  wisdom  ample  for  each  occasion;  and 
he  was  to  give  it,  as  they  knew  from  the  previous  promise,  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  within  them. 

promise"^  The  third  promise  was  made  in  the  memorable  discourse 
delivered  on  the  night  of  the  betrayal.  The  items  of  it  are 
found  in  several  distinct  passages  of  the  speech  :  "  I  will  pray 
the  Father,  and  he  will  send  you  another  Advocate,  that  he 
may  be  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  Avhom  the 
world  can  not  receive ;  for  it  beholdeth  him  not,  neither  know- 
cth  him  :  ye  know  him,  for  he  abideth  with  you,  and  shall  be 
in  you."  "These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  while  yet 
abiding  with  you.  But  the  Advocate,  even  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all 
things,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that  I  have  said 
to  you."  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  to  you,  but  ye  can 
not  bear  them  now.  Howbeit,  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  ioto  all  the  truth:  for  ho  shall  not 
speak  from  himself;  but  what  things  soever  he  shall  hear, 
these  shall  he  speak  :  and  he  shall  declare  unto  you  the  things 

promise  Jesus  as^^sures  the  disciples,  first,  that  the  Holy  Sj)irit 
would  be  with  them  and  in  them  always,  as  a  substitute  for 
his  own  presence.  Second,  that  he  should  teach  them  all 
things,  and  bring  to  their  remembrance  all  that  he  had  spoken 
to  them.  Third,  that  he  would  guide  them  into  all  the  truth. 
Doubtless,  by  "all  things,"  and  "all  the  truth,"  we  are  to 
understand  ail  that  was  needful  for  the  discharge  of  their  office 
as  Apostles ;  and  by  all  that  he  had  said  to  them,  all  that  was 
needed  by  them,  and  that  they  did  not  already  remember;  but 
these  are  the  only  limitations  which  wo  could  dare  to  assign 
to  the  very  explicit  words  employed. 

The  The  fourth  promise  was  given  on  the* day  of  the  ascension. 

promise.   After  charging  the  disciples  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem  till 


NEW    TESTAMENT   BOOKS.  175 

tliey  received  the  promise  of  the  Father  which  he  had  pre- 
viously mentioned,  he  tells  them:  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  in 
the  Holy  Spirit  not  many  days  hence;"  "Ye  shall  receive 
power  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  come  upon  you  :  and  ye  shall 
be  my  witnesses  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea  and 
Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  "  (Acts  i. 
5,  8).  Here  that  same  gift  of  the  Spirit  previously  promised 
is  called  a  baptism  in  the  Spirit — a  figure  which  designates ijj'* ""«•*"• 
the  subsidence  of  their  own  mental  powers  in  those  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  when  he  should  come  upon  ihem;  and  he  assures 
them  that  they  should  then  receive  power,  and  i)e  his  wit- 
nesses in  every  land.  The  power  necessary  to  be  such  wit- 
nesses, as  we  learn  from  the  sequel,  is  both  the  power  to  work 
physical  miracles  and  the  power  to  speak  with  absolute 
knowledge  concerning  the  exaltation  of  Jesus,  and  concerning 
his  will  in  all  things  on  which  he  had  not  spoken  in  person. 

If  these  several   promises  were  fulfilled  to  the  disciples  ^j^^^*"^ 
the  latter  were  endowed  as  follows:  promises. 

a.  The  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  them  with  such  power 
that  their  spirits  were  figuratively  immersed  in  it,  and  it  abode 
in  them  to  the  end  of  their  days. 

h.  It  gave  them,  or  taught  them,  what  to  say  and  how  to 
say  it,  in  such  measure  that  on  the  most  trying  occasions  they 
could  speak  with  unerring  wisdom,  iind  yet  without  anxiety 
or  })renu'ditation.  It  was  not  they  that  spoke,  but  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  spoke  in  them  ;  that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not 
they,  was  the  responsible  speaker. 

c.  To  the  end  of  enabling  them  thus  to  speak,  it  recalled 
to  their  memory,  as  fully  as  was  needful,  all  that  Jesus  had  in 
person  spoken;  and  as  the  words  he  had  spoken  were  inti- 
mately blended  with  the  deeds  he  had  done,  it  undoubtedly 
recalled  these  also.  This  was  especially  needed  when  they 
were  to  speak  or  write  concerning  his  earthly  career. 

(l.  To  the  same  end,  it  guided  them  into  all  truth  yet 
untaught,  which  it  was  the  will  of  Christ  that  they  sluMild 
know  and  teach.  This  was  needful  in  order  that  their  utter- 
ances concerning  those  items  of  CJod's  will  which  they  alone 
have  revealed,  that  is,  theii-  statements  concerning  things  in 


176        INSPIRATION   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT   BOOKS. 

the  spirit  world  and  in  the  future  of  time  and  eternity,  miglit 
be  received  as  the  word  of  God. 
record  of         ^^  '^^  ^^^  uncomiuon  to  hear  it  said  that  the  autltors  of  our 
promises  f*^"^'  Gospels  do  not  claim  to  have  written  by  inspiration.     It 
the^ass^er-  's  truc  that  Mark  and  Luke  set  up  no  such  claim  for  them- 
tire'lA-ui-  selves,  but  it  is  far  otherwise  in  reference   to   Matthew  and 
Johu.     In  setting  forth  these  promises  of  Jesus,  as  all  four  of 
these  writers  do,  they  mean  either  to  assert  that  Matthew  and 
John,  who  were  of  the  Twelve,  experienced  tlieir  fulfillment, 
or  that  they  remained  unfulfilled.     No  matter  what  we  may 
think  of  the  truthfulness  of  these  writers,  we  can  not  suppose 
they  meant  the  latter,  and  thereby  meant  that  their  Master 
made  promises  which  he  failed  to  fulfill.    Unquestionably  they 
intended  to  convey  the  thought  that  every  one  of  these  prom- 
ises was  fulfilled;  and  they  wrote  at  a  time  when  the  fulfill- 
ment was  a  fact  of  their  own  past  experience  or  observation. 


CHAPTER  II. 


FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  PROMISES  AS  STATED  IN  ACTS. 


We  have  seen  in  Part  Third  that  while  the  book  of  Acts?eiiajiii- 

ity  of  the 

has  been  more  confidently  assailed  by  unbelievers  than  any  one  author  of 
of  the  Gospels,  its  credibility  has  been  completely  vindicated. 
This  vindication  is  the  more  remarkable  from  the  fact  that 
this  book  occupies  such  a  relation  to  the  others,  and  especially 
to  Paul's  Epistles,  as  to  subject  it  to  a  greater  variety  of  tests 
than  any  other.  We  come  to  its  testimony  on  the  subject  of 
inspiration,  therefore,  with  full  confidence  that  in  its  state- 
ments we  shall  find  nothing  but  the  truth. 

After  a  few  introductory  paragraphs,  the  body  of  this  nar- '^^^^ ','0°^ 
rative  opens  with  a  detailed  account  of  the  fulfillment  of  thejoj.'^^'^ 
promises  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  inspiration.     The  author  hav-*ft°e"fii. 
ing  referred  to  these   promises  in   the  close  of  his  previous o^tho"' 
narrative,  and  also  in  the  introduction  to  this,  purposely  and  i'''^™'"*^^- 
formally  opens  the  body  of  his  work  with  the  account  of  this 
fulfillment;  so  that  it  comes  in  not  incidentally,  but  formally 
and  prominently.     He  represents  the  Twelve  as  waiting  for 
it  and  expecting  it  till  it  comes;  and  he  declares  that  it  came 
on  the  first  Pentecost  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.     He  saysJ^^^J^^nt. 
that  on  the  morning  of  that  day  thoy  were  all  together  in  one 
place,  and  suddenly  •'  there  apj)eared  to  them  tongues  parting 
asunder,  like  as  of  fire;  and  it  sat  upon   each   one   of  thi'm. 
And  they  M-ere  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."     He 
adds  that  there  were  men  there  from  fifteen  provinces  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  which  he  names,  representing  almost  as  manv 
toiiiriios  and  dialects,  who   heard  these  Galileans  speakin;::  in 


178  IXSPIRATION    OF    THE 

the  tongues  of  all  these  countries,  and  that  they  were  amazed 
and  confounded  by  the  fact,  and  inquired  with  one  voice, 
"  What  does  this  mean  ?"  He  further  states  that  one  of  the 
Twelve,  Simon  Peter,  arose,  together  with  his  eleven  com- 
panions, and  declared  that  this  miracle  was  the  fulfillment  of 
a  propliecy  uttered  by  the  prophet  Joel,  which  he  proceeds  to 
reci(e  in  their  hearing,  and  that  Jesus,  who  had  risen  from  the 
dead  and  ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  had  sent  upon 
them  the  Spirit  whose  power  his  hearers  were  witnessing 
(Acts  ii.  1-33). 
Items  of  Xow  here  was  the  fulfillment  of  the  promises  of  Jesus  in 

the  fill-  i 

fiiitnent.  almost  every  particular.  First,  the  Twelve  liad  no  premedi- 
tation, and  they  felt  no  anxiety.  No  amount  of  either  could 
have  helped  them  to  speak  in  tongues;  and  for  premeditation 
they  had  no  opportunity.  Second,  both  the  "what"  and  the 
"  how  "  of  their  utterances  were  given  to  them,  and  both  were 
given  by  giving  them  the  words ;  for,  the  Avords  being  unknown 
to  them,  they  were  not  suggested  by  the  thoughts  which 
were  conveyed  to  the  hearers.  In  this  was  fulfilled  almost 
absolutely  the  words:  "It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit 
of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you."  Third,  the  Spirit  led 
Peter  into  truth  hitherto  unknown;  for  it  enabled  him  to 
declare  the  law  of  remission  of  sins  under  Christ,  and  to 
make  known  the  exaltation  of  Jesus,  which  had  recently 
transpired  in  heaven.  It  is  highly  probable,  too,  that  it 
brought  to  his  mind  the  predictions  both  of  Joel  and  of 
David,  and  enabled  him  to  give  an  interpretation  to  both 
which  he  had  not  conceived  before  that  hour.  Fourth,  such  a 
complete  possession  of  their  minds  by  the  Holy  Spirit  fully 
justified  the  metaphor  by  which  the  transaction  was  called  a 
baptism  in  the  Spirit.  By  the  miracle  of  speaking  in  tongues 
it  was  now  demonstrated,  both  to  the  multitude  and  to  the 
Apostles  themselves,  that  a  power  had  taken  up  its  abode 
within  them  fully  able  to  i)erform  all  that  Jesus  had  promised, 
and  that  this  power  was  the  Spirit  of  God  sent  down  from 
heaven  by  Jesus  himself. 
SLnency  That  the  power  thus  bestowed  on  the  Twelve  on  the  great 
RifM.'f  the  Pentecost  ocmtinued  to  abide  in  them  according  to  the  promise, 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  179 

is  set  fort li  in  Acts  in  several  ways.  In  tlie  first  place,  the ^git^^ 
author  makes  formal  mention  of  it  a  few  times,  and  then  "^-lukc. 
leaves  us  to  infer  that  as  it  was  thus  far,  it  continued  to  be 
till  the  end.  For  instance,  when  Peter  was  first  arraigned 
before  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  the  writer,  as  if  to  call  attention 
to  l\yc  fulfillment  of  the  promise,  says :"  Then  Peter,  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  said  unto  them  "  (iv.  8),  and  proceeds  to 
quote  his  speech.  When  the  Apostles,  being  forbidden  to 
speak  any  more  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  had  prayed,  he  says : 
"  Tliey  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  they  spoke 
the  word  of  God  with  boldness"  (iv.  31). 

In  the  second  place,  he  quotes  the  Apostles  themselves  aSbythe^** 
affirming  the  continuance  of  this  power.  He  quotes  Peter,  "p°^""  = 
the  second  time  that  he  appeared  before  the  Sanhedrim,  as 
saying:  "We  are  witnesses  of  these  things;  and  so  is  the 
Holy  Spirit  whom  God  hath  given  to  them  who  obey  him  " 
(v.  31,  32).  This  was  an  echo  of  the  promise.  "When  the 
Advocate  is  come,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth 
from  the  Father,  he  shall  bear  witness  of  me:  and  ye  also 
shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the 
beginning."  Again,  he  quotes  Peter  three  times  as  affirming 
that  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues  bestowed  on  the  Gentiles 
in  the  house  of  Cornelius  was  tlie  same  as  that  bestowed  on 
the  Twelve  at  the  beginning,  thus  reasserting  the  event  of 
Penteco.st  (x.  44—17;  xi.  16,  17;  xv.  8).-  Finally  he  quotes 
the  Apostles  and  elders  who  were  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of 
the  conference  about  circumcision,  a.s  introducing  the  decree 
by  the  words,  "It  seemed  good  unto  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to 
us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary 
things  '  (xv.  27,  28),  thus  affirming  that  their  decision  was 
the  decision  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  it  could  have  been  (mly 
because  they  were  guided  in  it  by  the  Spirit. 

In  the  third  place,  the  author  himself  makes  the  same  rep- ^''^J^*^*' 
resentation,  by  mentioning  many  miracles  which  the  Apostles {J?*,^^^^'*^^ 
wrought,  which  were  at  once  a  proof  and  an  exhibition  of  the^^Q^j,  ijj. 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  within   them.     This  he  does  by 
his  nccount  of  healing  the  lame  man  at  the  beautifid  gate  of 
the  temple;  that  of  many  such  jx'rsons  healed  after  the  death 


ISO  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

of  Ananias  and  Sappliira;  that  of  Eoeas  at  Lydda,  and  the 
raising  of  Tabitha  from  the  dead  in  Joppa.  We  should  espe- 
cially note  also,  in  this  connection,  that  peculiar  exhibition  of 
the  Spirit's  power  by  which,  when  the  device  of  Ananias  and 
his  wife  put  it  to  the  test,  Peter  looked  into  the  secrets  of 
their  hearts  and  exposed  their  inmost  thoughts.  Here  was  a 
most  startling  and  unmistakable  exhibition  of  a  mental  power 
which  the  divine  Spirit  alone  could  impart, 
impart-'  "^^  *^^  fourtli  placc,  the  Apostles  are  represented  as  actu- 

splru^to  ^^ly  imparting  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  its  miraculous 
others;  manifestations  to  other  disciples.  Only  one  instance  is  for- 
mally described,  that  of  its  impartation  by  Peter  and  John  to 
disciples  in  Samaria;  but  the  gift  was  possessed  by  Stephen, 
by  Philip,  by  Agabus,  by  Barnabas,  by  Synieon  called  Niger, 
by  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  by  Manaen ;  and  it  was  doubtless 
conferred  on  all  of  these  in  the  same  way.  If  there  were  any 
doubt  on  this  point,  it  would  be  dissipated  by  what  we  shall 
yet  learn  from  the  practice  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  Now  this 
impartation  of  the  Spirit  to  others  is  a  demonstrative  proof 
that  the  Apostles  still  possessed  it  themselves,  and  that  the 
promise,  "  He  abideth  Avith  you,"  w^as  fulfilled. 
fhe^sS  In  t'^e  fifth  place,  all  that  is  affirmed  in  Acts  on  this  sub- 
M^nof  ject  concerning  the  Twelve  is  in  every  particular  affirmed  of 
Paul  after  he  became  an  Apostle.  He  was  filled  with  the 
Spirit  at  the  time  -of  his  baj)tism ;  he  was  a  prophet;  he 
wrought  many  miracles;  he  imparted  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
others;  and  he  was  even  led  by  the  direct  power  of  the  Spirit 
into  proper  fields  of  labor  when  his  own  judgment  as  to 
where  he  should  go  would  have  led  him  less  wisely  (Acts 
xvi.  6-8. 
TheBum         The  suni  of  the  evidence  in  Acts  concerning  the  fulfiU- 

oftliis  .  ° 

evidence,  nient  of  the  promiscs,  we  can  now  see,  is  the  sum  of  the 
promises  made  by  Jesus.  The  two  stand  over  against  each 
other  as  tin;  two  sid^s  of  an  equation ;  and  they  coml)ine  to 
show  that  there  abode  permanently  in  the  Apostles,  and  in 
some  of  their  companions,  a  power  of  God's  Holy  Spirit 
equal  to  their  perfect  enlightenment  and  guidance  in  all  that 
they  sought  to  know  mid  say  ;  and  that   it   did,  as  a  matter  of 


NEW    TESTAMENT   BOOKS.  181 

fact,  guide  their  thoughts,  their  words,  and  the  eour.^c  of 
their  missionary  journeys.  Not  only  so,  it  enabled  them  to 
speak  of  things  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  in  the  future,  con- 
cerning which,  without  divine  enlightenment,  men  in  the  flesh 
can  know  nothing.  A  more  complete  inspiration  for  their 
work  of  spaking,  of  writing,  and  of  directing  the  alfairs  of  the 
church,  is  beyond  conception.  We  can  add  nothing  to  it  iu 
thought,  and  we  should  not  in  thought  be  willing  to  take  any- 
thing from  it. 


CHAPTER   III. 


FULFILLMENT    OF  THE  PROMISES   AS  STATED   IN    THE 

EPISTLES. 


The  key 
passage. 


Paul 
claims 
miracu- 
lous 
power  ; 


and  reve- 
lations 
through 
the 
Spirit; 


the  Spirit 

having 

l)C'en 

!.'iven 

for  this 

I>ur|>ose. 


As  the  keynote  on  this  subject  for  the  whole  book  of  Acts 
is  sounded  in  the  second  chapter,  so  for  the  Epistles  it  is 
sounded  in  the  second  chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  Paul 
introduces  the  subject  by  saying :  "  My  speech  and  my  preacli- 
ing  were  not  in  persuasive  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in 
demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power;  that  your  faith 
should  not  stand  in  the  wi.sdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of 
God."  By  "demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power,"  he 
means  the  working  of  miracles  whicli  demonstrated  his  pos- 
session of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  the  people 
on  such  evidence  believed,  their  faith  rested  not  in  philosophy, 
but  in  the  power  of  God.  After  thus  repudiating  the  wisdom 
of  men  as  a  source  of  his  power  and  of  their  faith,  he  admits 
that  he  speaks  wisdom  among  the  perfect,  but  not  the  wisdom 
oi  this  world.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  the  wisdom  of  God, 
a  wi.sdom  concerning  things  which  men  had  never  seen,  heard 
or  conceived  ;  "  but,"  lie  says,  "  unto  us  God  revealed  them 
through  the  Spirit :  for  the  Spirit  searches  all  things,  yea,  the 
deep  things  of  God."  Here  is  an  express  assertion  that  he 
received  revelations  through  the  Spirit;  and  this  agrees  with 
the  ])romise  to  this  effect  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  John. 

In  the  next  place,  after  remarking  that  the  Spirit  searches 
all  things,  even  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  knows  them,  he 
says:  "  We  received,  not  tlie  spirit  of  the  world,  hut  the  Spirit 
which  is  of  God,  that  we  might  know  the  thinirs  which  are 
freelv  given  to  us  by  God.''  This  is  an  assertion  that  the 
Spirit  through    which   God   revealed    things  to   him   and    his 


(18'J) 


SEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  I8.'i 

fellows,  had   been  received  by  them   from   God  for  the  very 
purpose  of  making  these  revelations. 

Paul  next  speaks  of  the  words  in  which  the  things  revealed  ^^^°^*^J' 
by  the  Spirit  were    spoken.     He  says:  "Which  things  also |aught1?y 
we   speak,  not    in  words   which   man's  wisdom   teacheth,  butsp^jrit, 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth  ;  comparing  spiritual  things 
with   spiritual."     In  this  last  clause  the  term  "combining" 
would  express  the  meaning  better  than  "  comparing."     They 
combined   the   spiritual   things  with   spiritual  words'.'     Than 
this,   there   could   not  possibly  be  a  more  explicit  assertion 
that  the  inspired  men  were   guided   by  or  taught  by  the  Holy    * 
Spirit,  as  to  the  very  words  which  they  employed. 

Finally,  the  Apostle  ends  this  invaluable  series  of  state- J"*]^^^*^ 
ments  by  saying  of  the  same  class  of  whom  he  has  spoken  o'l'^chHs't. 
from  the  beginning,  "  We  have  the  mind  of  Christ;"  by 
which,  in  the  light  of  the  context,  we  must  understand  that 
in  all  their  official  utterances  their  thoughts  were  the  thoughts 
of  Christ,  or  the  very  thoughts  which  Christ  would  have  them 
to  utter. 

These  affirmations  made  bv   Paul   are  as  explicit  and  as^bese 

^  words 

comprehensive  as  those  made  by  Luke  in  the  second  chapter  c^'^fir^^^ 
of  Acts;  and  if  any  one  regards  the  words  of  an  Apostle  as|",f^^^"' 
more  authoritative  than  those  of  the  Evangelist,  he  ought  the^,';'^^  '*^"* 
more    readily    to    accept    the    latter    because    they    are    thustTH°cS 
reaffirmed.      Let    it    be    remembered,    too,    that    even    those  "uVjecit. 
rationalists  who   deny  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of  Acts 
:uhnit  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
consequently  they  admit  that  Paul  actually  wrote  these  affirm- 
ations.    These,  then,   must  be    held    both   by   believers  and 
unbelievers  as  setting    forth    the    apostolic    teaching  on  this 
subject. 

If  this  passage;  stood  alone  in  the   apostolic   writings,  all 
that  we  have  just  said  would  be  true;  but  it  does  not  by  any 
means   stand    alone.      Every    thought    which    it    contains    is  The  same 
echoed  again  and  acjain  in  other  utterances  scattered  through  asserted 
the  Epistles.     In  regard  to  receiving  revelations  through  tlie^^''^''^- 
Spirit,  Paul   says    of  his   knowledge    of  the   Gospel,  that  he 

'See  Thayer's  <Jriiuiu  (Gr.  Lex.  N.  T.)  and  Meyer,  Com.  in  loio. 


i84  INSPIRATION    OF   THt 

neither  received  it  from  men,  nor  was  he  taught  it;  but 
that  it  came  to  him  "through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ" 
(Gal.  i.  12).  He  says  concerning  the  mystery  of  the  call  and 
the  equal  rights  of  the  Gentiles,  that  it  was  made  known  to 
him  "by  revelation  "  —  that  "  it  hath  now  been  revealed  unto 
his  holy  apostles  and  prophets  in  the  Spirit"  (Eph.  iii.  1-5). 
He  introduces  his  prediction  concerning  the  great  apostasy, 
with  the  words,  "  But  the  Spirit  saith  expressly,  thnt  in  the 
later  times  some  shall  fall  away  from  the  faith"  (I.  Tim.  iv.  1). 
He  says  concerning  his  journey  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem 
with  Barnabas,  "I  went  up  by  revelation"  (Gal.  ii.  2),  thus 
affirming,  as  Luke  in  Acts  affirms,  that  on  some  occasions  his 
journeyings  were  controlled  by  tiie  guiding  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Acts  xvi.  G-8).  Finally,  he  declares  to  the  Corinth- 
ians  that  his  thorn  in  the  flesh,  "  a  messenger  of  Satan  to 
buffet  him,"  was  given  him  to  prevent  him  from  being 
"exalted  overmuch  by  the  exceeding  greatm^ss  of  the  revela- 
tions" which  he  received  (II.  Cor.  xii.  7). 
Pauls  Xhe  assertion,  "We  have  the  mind  of  Christ,"  is  echoed 

precepts  ' 

nmnd"-'"    ^"    another   part    of  the  same   Epistle,  as  follows:  "If  any 

IhtTo'^rd,  "1^"  thinketh  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him 

take  knowledge  of  the  things  which  I  write  to  you,  that  they 

are  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  "  (I.  Cor.  xiv.  37).     Here  he 

not  only  asserts  that  what  he  wrote  was  the  command  of  the 

Lord,  which  it  could  not  be  unless  he  had  "  the  mind  of  the 

Lord,"  but  he  assumes  that  any  man  in  the  church  who  was  a 

prophet  or  a  spiritual  man,  that   is,  possessed  of  a  spiritual 

irift,  could  know  that  what  he  wrote  was  in  reality  from  the 

Lord.     And  let  it  not  escape  our  notice  here    that  this   af- 

ihewrit-  firmatioH  is  made  concerning  what  he  wrote,  and  not  concern- 
ten  n»  1  1   I  1      •         1 

well  as  ing  what  he  spoke.  It  shows  that  although,  in  the  promises 
of  Jesus  on  the  subject  of  inspiration,  reference  was  made 
especially  to  the  s])eeches  of  the  Apostles,  Jesus  did  not  in- 
tend to  make  a  distinction  between  what  they  spoke  and  what 
they  might  write;  but  that  speaking  was  put  for  all  their 
utterances,  whether  witii  the  tongue  or  the  pen. 

In    regard    to    the   "demonstration    of  the   Spirit   and   of 
power*"  mentioned  in  our  key   passage,  the  affirmations  else- 


NEW    TESTAMENT    HOOKS.  IHo 

where  are  abundant.     Speaking  in  tongues  was  in  itself  '^^th  ^,^9^^^  ^^ 
a    demonstration    of  the  Spirit's  power,  and  an   instance   off^Jj'"*^'^'^. 
speaking  in  words  which  the  Holy  Spirit  taught;  and  on  this foriffeigg. 
point  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  who  prided  themselves  on^^"*'" 
the   possession  of  this   gift,    "  I   thank    God,  I    speak    with 
tongues  more  than  you  all"  (I.  Cor.  xiv.  18,  19).     He  claims 
also  to  have  imparted  to  the  Corinthians  miraculous  gifts  of 
tiie   Spirit,  including  the  gift  of  tongues,  and  to  have  done 
the  same  among  the  Galatians.     (I.  Cor.  i.  5,  6;  xii.  7-11; 
27-31;  xiv.  1-5;  15-17;  22,  23;  Gal.  iii.  5).      Moreover,  he 
claims  to  have  wrought  wonders,  signs  and  mighty  Avorks  in 
support  of  his  preaching,  throughout  the  whole  field  of  his 
labors  (II.  Cor.  xii.  12;  Rom.  xv.  18,  19).     About  the  physi- 
cal miracles  he  could  not  have  been  mistaken,  and  they  were 
the  demonstration,  both  to  himself  and  to  others,  that  he  was 
not  mistaken  in  claiming  to  be  inspired. 

The  Epistles  of  the  other  Apostles  are  so  much  less  vol- '''^■*''-  , 

*  A  inony  of 

uminous  than  those  of  Paul,  that  we  have  not  the  same  means '("^g^^lJ 
of  knowing  what  they  asserted  on  this  subject,  apart  from 
their  words  already  cited  from  Acts;  but  what  they  do  say, 
taken  in  connection  with  these  other  sources,  is  decisive. 
Thus  Peter,  s])eaking  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  says: 
"  To  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  you,  did  they  minister  the  things,  which  now  have  been 
announced  to  you  tltrough  tiiem  that  preached  the  gospel  to 
you  by  the  Holy  Spirit  sent  down  from  heaven;  which  things 
angels  desire  to  look  into"  (I.  Pet.  i.  12).  John,  in  almost 
the  very  language  of  the  promise,  that  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
when  he  came,  should  l)ear  witness  of  Jesus,  says:  "It  is 
the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is  the  truth. 
For  there  are  three  that  bear  witness,  the  Spirit,  the  water, 
and  the  blood:  and  tiie  three  a<rree  in  one"  (I.  Jno,  v.  7,  8). 
Likewise,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  t!ie  Hebrews,  an 
apostolic  writer,  even  if  he  were  not  the  Apostle  Paul,  says 
that  the  great  salvation  which  was  at  first  spoken  through  the 
Lord  "was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  th;it  heard,  God  also 
bearing  witness  with  them,  both  by  signs  and  wonders,  and 
by  manifold  powers,  and  by  gifts  of  the   Holy  Spirit,  accord- 


186         INSPIRATION    OF   THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS. 

ing  to  his  own  will "  (Heb.  ii.  4).  AVords  are  here  multi- 
plied, as  if  for  the  purpose  of  carefully  covering  all  the  ground 
which  we  have  just  gone  over.  More  evidence  than  we  have 
now  presented  could  scarcely  have  been  given,  and  certainly 
more  should  not  be  required.  He  who  can  not  receive  this, 
must  deny  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles,  both  as  to  their 
own  experiences,  and  as  to  the  promises  which  they  claim  to 
have  received  from  Jesus. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

INSPIRATION   OF   MARK,  LUKE,  JAMES,  AND   JUDAS. 

Thus  far  the  evidence  of  inspirati(Hi,  explicit  and  doubly  j^'l^^'j^^ 
reiterated  its  it  is,  applies  only  to  the  Apostles.     We  have  now^jj,'^^" 
to  inquire  to  what  extent  it  may  be  affirmed  that  Mark,  Luke/*^"''"- 
James,  and  Judas,  the  other  New  Testament  writers,  were  also 
inspired.     It  is  well  known   that  concerning  the   inspiration 
of  these   we   have  no    explicit   statement  as  in   case  of  the 
Apostles;  and  that  if  there  is  evidence  of  their  inspiration,  it 
must  be  of  an  inferential  kind. 

To  begin  with  Luke,  it  is  often  said  that  he  expressly  dis-T^"'"f 
claims  inspiration,  by  asserting  for  himself,  in  the  preface  to 
his  Gospel,  a  different  source  of  information.     It  is  true  that 
he  does  claim  a  different  source  of  information  ;  but  this  is  not 
disclaiming  the  Holy  Spirit's  aid   in  composing  his  narrative.  [Jj®!^^"!^-^ 
The  Apostles  are  not  represented  as  obtaining  their  i n forma- pJ^I'**^*' 
tion    by   inspiration;    that   is,    their    information    about    the *f"j"jg*i,j. 
earthly  career  of  Jesus;  but  as  being  jjjuided  by  the  Spirit  in""*"®"- 
recording  it.     If,  then,  Luke  was  as  fully  inspired  as  they,  he 
still  must  have  resorted  to  eye-witnesses  for  his  information, 
while  like  them  he  would  have  been  aided  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  discriminating  between  what  was  accurate  and   inaccurate 
in  the  information,  and  in  writing  just  that,  no  more,  no  less, 
which  God  willed  that  he  sliould  write.     Indeed,  the  Apostles 
were  themselves  dependent  on  (\ve-witnesses  other  than  them- 
selves for  information  about  some  matters,  but  this  detracts 
nothing  from  their  claim  to  inspiration  ;  and  the  diflerence 
between   them    and    Luke    in    this   particular  is   ouv   ouly  of 
degree.     Luke,  then,  does  not  by  any  means  disclaiin  inspira- 
tion. 

(187) 


188  iNspruATroN  of  the 

oppos\te^  The  iin])lioation  in  Luke's  preface  really  looks  in  the  op- 
direction.  pQsitc  direction.  He  avows  the  purpose  of  his  narrative  in 
the  words,  "That  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  concern- 
ing the  things  wherein  thou  wast  instructed  ;"  and  he  avows 
this  in  the  face  of  tiie  preceding  statement,  that  many  had 
"taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  those 
matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us,  even  as  they 
delivered  them  to  us  who  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of 
the  word."  Now  there  must  iiave  been  something  attached 
to  the  person  of  Luke,  on  which  Theophilus  could  rely  for 
the  certainty  in  question — something  which  distinguished  him 
in  point  of  reliability  from  the  previous  reporters  of  the  same 
original  testimony.  What  could  this  have  been  unless  it  were 
the  fact  known  to  Theophilus,  that  Luke  was  inspired,  and 
that  those  other  writers  were  not?  If  it  be  answered  that  it 
was  the  fact  of  his  having  "  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
from  the  first,"  we  reply  that  he  does  not  deny  this  qualifica- 
tion to  the  pievious  writers;  for  he  includes  these  with  himself 
in  the  words,  "  even  as  they  delivered  them  to  us  who  were 
from  the  beginning  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word." 
Evidence        The  principal  grounds  for  believing  that  Mark  and  Luke 

of  the  in-  ffb  b 

spiration  were  inspired  men  are  these:  first,  they  both  belonged  to 
and  Luke  that  class  of  fcllow-laborcrs  of  the  Apostles  on  whom  they 
were  accustomed,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  citations  from  the 
Epistles  and  Acts,  to  confer  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit; 
and  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  in  the  bestow- 
ment  of  these  gifts  these  two  men  were  slighted.  Sucli  gifts 
were  bestowed  on  many,  as  in  the  church  at  Corinth  and 
others,  who  sustained  no  such  relation  of  intimacy  with  the 
Apostles  as  did  these  two.  Second,  had  these  men  not  jk)s- 
sessed  such  a  gift,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  they  would 
have  undertaken,  like  the  writers  to  whom  Luke  refers  in  his 
preface,  to  compose  these  narratives:  they  would  have  left 
such  work,  as  becoming  prudence  and  modesty  would  have 
prompted,  to  others  who  were  more  competent.  Finally,  all 
the  evidences  of  inspiration  based  on  the  unique  character  of 
our  Gospels,  marking  them  out  as  writings  characteristically 
different  from  all   others  in  the  range  of  literature,  suppttrt  as 


SEW    TESTAMENT    B(JOK.S.  189 

strongly  the  inspiration  of  these  two  writers  as  they  do  that  of 
Matthew  and  John.  For  these  reasons  both  believers  and 
unbelievers  have  classed  these  two  Gospels  with  the  other  two 
in  respect  to  inspiration,  nnbelievers  pronouncing  them  all 
alike  uninspired,  and  believers  pronouncing  them  all  alike 
inspired.  Among  all  the  theorists  on  the  subject  no  party 
has  been  formed  hohling  to  the  inspiration  of  Matthew  and 
John,  and  denying  that  of  Mark  and  Luke. 

As  to  James  and  Judas,  all  that  we  have  said  about  Mark  ia^gg' "' 
and  Luke  may  be  said  of  them,  and  more  besides.  James,  the  juJjgs. 
author  of  the  Epistle  which  bears  bis  name,  is  the  very  James 
who,  together  with  Peter  and  John,  sent  forth  the  decree  con- 
cerning the  Gentiles,  and  said  in  the  introduction  of  it,  **  It 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us,"  thus  claiming  to 
decide  and  to  write  by  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
is  a  direct  claim  of  inspiration  for  James.  Furthermore,  it  is 
incredible  that  he  could  have  occupied  the  position  of  au- 
thority w'hich  he  did  in  Jerusalem  for  many  years  if  he  had 
not  been  credited  with  full  inspiration.  As  to  Judas,  he  was 
a  brother  of  James,  and  also  a  brother  of  the  Lord  ;  and  it  is 
incredible  that  in  the  distribution  of  miraculous  gifts  by  the 
Apostles  he  was  overlooked  or  slighted. 

Now  if  to  any  one  the  evidence  for  the  inspiration  of  these  |^ffect  of 
four  writers  shall  appear  unsatisfactory,  he  may  still  accept ^0*^^^^^^ 
their  writings  as  the  uninspired  productions  of  good  men, 
thoroughly  competent,  so  far  as  uninspired  men  could  be,  to 
write  reliable  narratives  concerning  Jesus.  Much  in  the  way 
of  truths  and  facts  which  they  have  written  is  also  contained 
in  the  writings  of  Apostles;  and  this  inucli  rests  unquestion- 
ably on  inspired  authority.  The  rest,  while  void  of  this 
autliority,  would  still  be  as  credible  as  any  mere  human  pro- 
ductions could  be.  So,  then,  the  practieul  difference  between 
the  matter  of  the  faith  of  the  man  who  can  not  receive  the 
writings  of  these  four  as  inspired,  if  such  there  be,  and  that  of 
him  who  receives  all,  amounts  to  but  little,  and  is  not  worthy 
of  much  serious  discussion. 


CHAPTER  V. 
MODIFYING  STATEMENTS  AND  FACTS. 
Modify-  \Yq  have   thus  far  followed  the  statements  of  the  New 

state- 
defined  Testament  in  a  direct  line  of  evidence,  without  paying  atten- 
tion to  some  which  might  have  modified  our  view  of  par- 
ticular passages,  or  led  us  to  different  conclusions.  Some  of 
the  latter  statements,  while  they  may  not  materially  change 
our  conclusions,  may  broaden  our  view  of  the  subject ;  and 
there  are  a  few  which  have  been  thought  to  contradict  some  of 
the  conclusions  which  we  have  reached.  To  the  former  class 
we  now  direct  attention,  and  the  latter  we  reserve  for  consid- 
eration in  a  separate  chapter. 
8ar^ty"es  Among  the  most  conspicuous  of  these  modifying  facts  is 
u^ru'1%  one  observed  by  all  intelligent  readers,  that  every  writer  has 
changed;  ^^^  own  peculiar  style,  the  result  of  his  education  and  his  men- 
tal endowments.  In  this  respect  the  New  Testament  writers 
do  not  differ  from  writers  without  inspiration.  They  not  only 
have  their  distinctive  styles,  but,  being  all  Jews  but  one,  they 
employ  Hebraistic  forms  and  idioms  in  writing  Greek,  just  as 
modern  Germans  often  employ  German  idioms  in  writing 
English.  This  shows  plainly  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  to 
any  perceptible  degree  change  their  natural  modes  of  expres- 
sion. It  ehows  that  the  promise,  '^  It  shall  not  be  ye  that 
speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you," 
did  not  contemplate  mental  inactivity  on  their  part;  and 
that  Paul's  statement,  "Which  things  we  speak  not  in  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
teacheth,"  does  not  mean  thnt  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  them  a 
new  vocabulary  or  imparted  to  them  a  new  style.  It  chose,  on 
the  contrarv,  bv  jfavimj^  each  to  his  own  stvle  to  secure  in  the 

(.I'M), 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS,  191 

inspired  books  that  variety  of  style  which  makes  them  at  once 
more  pleasing  to  the  reader  and  more  effective  of  good.  Tl  at 
there  was  wisdom  in  this,  no  one  will  perhaps  deny. 

Not  only  is  the  natural  style  and  diction  of  every  writer  p^jT^^'"" 
ap[)arently  preserved  in  the  sacred  books,  but  we  also  observe g^p,*^^ 
in  many  of  them,  especially  in  the  Epistles,  the  natural  play^*'*'^' 
of  the  feelings  of  the  writer.  True,  the  synoptical  Gospels  are 
wondrously  free  from  everything  of  this  kind,  the  personality 
of  the  writers  being  out  of  sight,  and  the  Gospel  of  John  and 
the  book  of  Acts  are  almost  as  much  so;  but  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  one  can  trace  all  the  currents  of  his  deep  flow  of  feeling, 
and  almost  feel  the  beating  of  his  heart.  To  such  an  extent 
is  this  true  that  of  all  the  writers  of  the  whole  Bible  Paul  is 
the  best  known  in  his  inward  experiences.  This  shows  that 
if  in  any  instance  the  Holy  Spirit  restrained  the  inspired  men 
in  regard  to  the  expression  of  their  feelings  concerning  the 
things  of  which  they  wrote,  in  many  instances  there  was  no 
such  restraint.  The  feelings  thus,  expressed  were  of  course  all 
human  feelings,  and  tiiey  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  a 
luiman  element  in  the  inspired  books.  The  Holy  Spirit 
allowed  them  a  place  in  the  record  for  the  evident  purpose  of 
enabling  the  reader  to  know  how  the  writers  felt  under  the 
circnmstanees.  That  this  was  wise  is  clearly  demonstrated  by 
tlu  power  for  good  with  which  these  intense  exhibitions  of 
fcelinir  affect  the  souls  of  thoughtful  readers.  Without  tiiem 
the  Bililc  would  have  been  a  comparatively  cold  and  powerless 
book.  That  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  promises  of  Jesus, 
and  the  declarations  of  the  Apostles  which  we  have  cited  in 
the  ])receding  chapter,  is  obvious. 

The  quotations  which  the  New  Testament  writers  make  (S)  Quou- 
from  the  Old  Testament   furnish  a  series  of  facts  which  still  from 

Ihe  O.  T. ; 

further  illustrate  tb.c  manner  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
exercised  his  guidance  over  the  minds  of  the  inspired  men. 
In  making  these  quotations  they  were  under  tiie  necessity  of 
either  quoting  from  the  Septuagint,  the  only  Greek  translation  nsnniir 
then  extant,  or  making  new  renderings  for  themselves  directly  from  the 
from  the  Hebrew.  Tn  the  majority  of  instances  they  did  the 
former;  and  if  they  had   not  been  inspired  it  is  probable  tiiat 


192  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

all  except  Paul  would  have  done  so  uniformly ;  for  it  is  quite 
doubtful  whether  auj  except  lie  was  acquainted  with  the 
Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  not  studied  in  that 
age  except  by  the  Jearned.  Out  of  the  181  quotations  which 
are  collected  and  tabulated  in  Horn's  Introduction,  that 
laborious  author  sets  down  74  as  agreeing  exactly  with  the 
Septuagint,  or  varying  from  it  in  insignificant  particulars;  47 
as  being  from  the  Septuagint  *'  with  some  variations;"  and  31 
as  "agreeing  with  the  Septuagint  in  sense,  but  not  in  words." 
Thus  152  out  of  the  181  quotations  agree  substantially  with 
the  Septuagint,  while  a  majority  of  them  agree  with  it  literally. 
limeif™'^  In  some  instances,  estimated  as  eleven  by  Horn,  the  quotations 
Hebrew^  differ  from  the  Septuagint,  but  agree  nearly  or  exactly  with 
the  Hebrew,  showing  clearly  that  in  these  instances  the 
writers  made  a  new  translation  of  the  passages  for  themselves. 
A  remark  ible  instance  of  this  is  the  following: 

Hebreio:  Love  covereth  all  sins  (Prov.  x.  12). 

Septuagint :  But  friendship  covereth  all  them  who  are  not 
contentious. 

/.  Pet.  IV.  8 :  For  love  shall  cover  the  multitude  of  sins. 
A  few  In  some  other  instances  the  quotations  vary  in  words,  and 

Ij'o™        more  or  less  in  thought  from  both  the  present  Hebrew  text 
and  the  Septuagint.     The  following  is  an  example: 

Hebreio:  Thou  hast  ascended  up  on  high,  thou  hast  led 
thy  captivity  captive,  thou  hast  received  gifts  among  men 
(Psa.  Ixviii.'l8). 

Septuagint:  Having  ascended  on  high,  thou  hast  led  thy 
captivity  captive,  and  received  gifts  in  the  manner  of  men. 

Eph.  iv.  8 :  When    he  ascended    up   on    high   he   led   his 

captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  to  men. 

by  carry-         In  this  instanc(!  the  obscure  expression   of  tiie   Hebrew, 

the  "  re(;(!ivod  gifts  among  men,"  is  rendered  bv  the  Greek  trans- 

ihought,  °  .„      .        , 

lators,  "received  gifts  in  the  manner  of  men,"  and  by  Paul, 

"gave  gifts  unto  men."  This  is  a  change  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment text  in  thought;  but  it  only  carries  the  original  thought 
to  its  ultimate  aim;  for  the  gifts  which  Christ  received  were 
not  for  himself,  but  for  men,  and   this  is  brought  out  in   the 

words,  "gave  gifts  to  men." 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS,  193 

From  these   oli.^irvations  it  appears  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  quoted  the  Old  Testament  freely.     In  a  majority 
of  instances  they  departed  from  its  phraseology,  and  in  a  few  ing^con. 
they  varied  the  thought  by  either  expanding,  or  contracting,  IJ",^''',"^^. 
or  expounding  it.     In  all  these  latter  instances,  if  they  were}"'"'"'""* 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  all,  we  must  un<lerstand  that  he 
guided    them   to    make    variations    on    his    own    words   and 
thoughts  previously  expressed  through  the  prophets.     Or,  if*";',,"/' 
we  suppose  that  in  these  matters  he  left  their  minds  free  from  ^pIJJ'^IJJ'pp 
guidance,  we  must  conclude  that  he  did  so  because  the  writers  p[y'\J'^i 
without  special  guidance  wrote  that  which  he  approved.     In 
other  words,  if  the  Apostles  have  not  falsified  the  fact  of  their 
inspiration,  their  quotations   are  just  what   the   Holy   Spirit 
would  have  them  to  be. 

Another  class  of  modifyiner  facts,  closely  related  to  the  last(^>  * '<»■ 

-^       o  '  •'  tions  of 

mentioned,  consists  of  citations  of  facts  from  the  Old  Testa- ff.^'^. 
ment,  not  in  the  form  of  quotations,  in  which  the  Septuagint  jieS'',.^";|^.'' 
account  is  followed  instead  of  the  Hebrew,  or  in  which  there 
is  a  departure  from  both.  Of  the  former  we  mention  three 
specifications:  First,  Luke's  citation  of  Cainan  as  son  of  Ar- 
phaxad  and  father  of  Shelah,  this  name  being  oniiitcd  in  the 
Hebrew  text  (Luke  iii.  35,  cf.  Gen.  xi.  12).  Second,  Stephen's 
statement  of  the  number  of  Jacob's  family  when  he  migrated 
to  Egypt  at  seventy -five  souls,  after  the  Septuagint,  whereas 
the  Hebrew  has  it  seventy  (Acts  vii.  14;  cf  Gen.  xlvi.  27). 
Third,  Paul's  statement  that  the  law  came  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after  tiie  promise,  as  compared  with  the  statement  of 
the  Hebrew  text  that  the  sojourning  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  ((Jnl.  iii.  17;  Ex.  xii.  40), 
Paul  follows  the  Septuagint  version  of  Exodus,  which  says : 
"The  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  so- 
journed in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  was 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years."     In  all    these  instances  the.How 

J    •'  they  oc- 

writcrs  followed  the  version  which  they  constantly  read,  with-*^"'^'*''^' 
out  knowing,  perhaps,  that  it  differed   from  the  Hebrew,  just 
as  scholars  at  the  present  day  often  quote  from  our  English 
version  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  it  is  accurate  or 
not.     Even  if  Luke,  Stephen  or  Paul   had  stopjied  to  inquire 


194  INSI'IRATIOX    OF    THE 

which  text  "sva.s  correct  iu  the  places  cited,  it  is  not  at  all 
probable  that  they  could  have  decided  the  question  by  their 
pennit^^  Unaided  powers.  It  is  clear  that  the  Holy  Spirit  could  have 
^^^-  guided  them,  as  it  did  other  writers  in  other  instances,  to  fol- 
low the  Hebrew  instead  of  the  Greek  text;  and  it  follows  from 
the  fact  that  he  did  not^  that  he  desired  the  facts  to  be  stated 
as  the  people  read  them  in  their  Bibles,  rather  than  to  raise 
questions  of  textual  criticism  among  a  people  unprepared  for 
such  investigations.  Such  a  procedure  would  not  have  been 
admissible  if  the  argument  of  the  writer  in  either  case  had 
depended  on  tlie  correctness  of  the  name  or  the  figures;  but 
as  it  did  not,  there  was  no  need  of  decision  between  the  two 
texts.  At  the  present  day  the  most  accurate  of  scholars  are 
in  the  habit  of  quoting  passages  from  our  English  version  that 
are  inaccurately  translated,  without  stopping  to  correct  the 
renderings  except  when  the  use  which  they  make  of  a 
passage  depends  on  rendering  it  correctly.  To  do  otherwise 
would  overload  discourse  with  irrelevant  matter,  and  expose 
one  to  the  charge  of  pedantry. 
ferinff' '  Instances    of    departure    in    matters    of    fact    from    both 

the"  °  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not 
and  the  numcrous,  but  we  mention  three  which  are  conspicuous: 
o.  T.:  first,  the  substitution  of  Abraham  for  Jacob  as  the  purcha- 
ser of  the  piece  of  land  from  Hamor  in  Shechem  (Acts  vii. 
16,  cf.  Gen.  xxxiii.  19);  second,  the  substitution  of  Abiathar 
for  Abimelech  as  high  priest  when  David  ate  the  shew- 
bread  (Mark  ii.  26,  cf  I.  Sam.  xxi.  1-6);  and  third,  the  cita- 
tion of  the  ]iassage  about  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  from 
Jeremiah  instead  of  Zechariah  (Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10,  cf  Zech. 
xi.  12).  The  first  two  are  obvious  verbal  mistakes,  and  the 
only  question  is  whether  they  were  made  by  the  sacred  writers 
or  by  early  transcribers.  When  we  consider  the  unexampled 
accuracy  of  the  sacred  writers  in  all  such  matters,  and  add  to 
this  the  consideration  of  their  inspiration,  and  then  consider 
on  the  other  hand  the  certainty  of  clerical  errors  even  in  the 
very  first  copies  made  by  transcribers,  we  ought  not  to  hesitate 
how  to  decide  this  question.  All  probability  is  in  favor  of 
the  supposition  that  sonic  (copyist   originated    the  error.      As 


how  u<;- 
counled 
for. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  195 

to  the  name  Jeremiah,  it  must  be  disposed  of  in  the  same 
way  and  for  the  same  reasons,  unless,  as  some  learned  writers 
have  supposed,  Matthew  here  used  the  name  Jeremiah  because 
the  manuscript  roll  of  the  prophets,  which  in  many  Jewish 
copies  began  with  Jeremiah,  wus  referred  to  instead  of  the 
particular  prophet.'  Only  in  case  it  were  certain  that  these 
three  errors  were  committed  by  the  inspired  penmen  could 
they  have  any  bearing  on  the  question  of  inspiration. 

Some  of  the  predictions  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament (s)  Pre- 

,,,,.,--  ,  ,  .  .  .         dictions 

as  luliilled  in  the  Isew  demand  attention  in  this  connection,  quoted 

liaving 

While  many  of  the  predictions  thus  quoted  aiipear  from  their  "«  apj.ar- 
context  in  the  Old  Testament  to  have  direct  reference  to  tliee^"Sj9y'^ 
events  by  which  they  are  fulfilled,  there  are  some  which  have  ^^^j®^^®'^^ 
no  such  apparent  reference.  Two  representative  examples (^^^'^ 
are  l)rought  together  by  John  as  being  fulfilled  in  the  death 
of  Jesus.  When  the  soldiers,  in  breaking  the  bones  of  the 
crucified,  passed  by  those  of  Jesus  in  disobedience  to  orders, 
and  one  of  them  pierced  his  side  with  a  spear,  John  says 
there  were  fulfilled  Ihe  two  predictions,  "A  bone  of  hinij^pig^* 
shall  not  be  broken  :"  and,"  They  shall  look  on  him  whom 
they  pierced."  The  former  of  these  was  originally  written 
with  respect  to  the  paschal  lamb ;  and  it  was  given  as  a 
rule  forbidding  the  Jews,  in  preparing  and  carving  and  eating 
the  lamb,  to  break  one  of  its  bones.  This  was  a  very  remark- 
able prohibition,  requiring  great  care  to  observe  it;  and  cer- 
tainly no  Israelite,  throughout  the  ages  in  which  it  was 
observed,  could  have  discovered  an  adequate  reason  for  it. 
It  appears  equally  certain  that  no  Christian  after  the  death  of 
Jesus  could  have  seen  and  affirmed  the  connection  pointed  cut 
by  John,  until  by  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  it  was  dis- 
covered that  the  paschal  laml)  was  a  type  of  Christ  (I.  Cor.  v. 
7) ;  and  then  the  mysterious  prohibition  was  understood.  The 
latter  prediction,  quoted  from  Zeehariah  xii.  10,  is  obscure  in 
the  original  context;  but  it  occurs  in  a  passage  which  speaks 
of  Judah  and  Jerus  ilem,  and  it  is  jirobable  that  no  reader  of 
the  passage,  either  before  or  after  the  crucifixion,  would  have 

*  See  the  discussion  of  tliis  ques-    Nole^  on  Malthfv^n  Gospel,  Speaker^$ 
lion  l)v  Canon  Cook  in   AditiUnnnl    Ciiwninilnri/. 


196 


I^'SPIRATION    OF    THE 


Their 
bearing 
on  the 
question 
of  Inspir- 
ation. 


(O  N.  T. 
f^uota- 
tions 
from 

Jesus  and 
others  in 
var>'ing 
words. 


supposed  it  had  any  reference  to  the  j)iereing  of  the  .side  of 
Jesus,  without  the  Apostle  as  a  guide;  and  how  could  he 
have  thought  so  without  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  guide?  Such 
uses  of  the  Old  Testament,  unless  we  regard  them  as  the 
vagaries  of  unliceu.sed  interpretation,  and  this  is  the  light  in 
which  they  are  regarded  by  those  who  deny  miraculous  in- 
spiration, contain  further  proofs  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Xi  w 
Testament  writers,  seeing  that  they  exhibit  deeper  penetration 
into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  than  we  can  credit  to  the 
unaided  powers  of  the  Apo.stles.  They  show  that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  prophetic  writings  of  the  Okl  Testament, 
had  reference  in  his  own  mind,  in  various  utterances  which 
he  prompted,  to  far  different  events  from  those  to  which 
the  minds  of  the  prophets  were  unavoidably  limited.  It 
shows  also  that  to  the  inspired  minds  of  the  New  Testament 
the  Holy  Spirit  revealed  much  of  the  .significance  of  woids 
employed  by  those  of  the  Old,  which  the  latter  did  not  them- 
selves understand.  Thus  he  was  fulfilling  the  Savior's  prom- 
ise of  guiding  the  Apostles  into  all  the  truth,  by  making 
known  old  truth  that  had  been  hidden,  as  well  as  by  reveal- 
ing much  that  had  never  before  been  spoken.  The  remarks 
suggested  by  these  two  ])redictions  apply  with  equal  force  to  a 
number  of  others  quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  which  in  the 
original  context  have  no  apparent  reference  to  the  events  in 
which  they  were  fulfilled. 

On  comparing  the  quotations  made  by  the  four  Evange- 
lists severally  from  the  words  of  Jesus  and  others,  we  find 
that  in  quoting  the  same  remark  they  sometimes  vary  the 
wording  of  it  in  much  the  same  way  as  they  vary  the  words 
of  Old  Testament  writers.  The  following  are  familiar  ex- 
amples. The  words  heard  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  are  in  Mat- 
thew: "This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  ])leased  ;" 
in  liuke  and  Mark:  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I  am 
well  pleased."  The  words  of  the  fir.st  temptation  are  in 
Matthew:  "If  thon  art  the  Son  of  G(»(l,  command  that  these 
stones  become  l)read  ;  "  in  Ijuko  :  "  Command  this  stone  that  it 
become  bread."  The  re])ly  of  Jesus  to  this  temptation  is  in 
Matth(>w:  "  \{  is  written,  Man  .shall  not   live  by  bread  alone, 


NEW    TK.STAMKNT    H(J()K.S.  197 

but  by  every  word   tliat   .shall  proceed  out  of  the  mouth  of 
God;"  in  Luke:  "  It  is  written,  Man  shall   not  live  by  bread 
alone."     Similar  variations  are  found  in  many  places;  but  in 
none  of  them  is  there  a  material  change  of  meaning.     They 
show  that  in  bringing  to  remembrance   what  Jesus  had  said 
to  the  Apostles,  the  Spirit  always  brought  to  them  the  tiiought. 
I)iit  not  always  the  exact  phraseology;  and  as  this  is  true  of;^"p^'|JoJ^ 
some  which  we  can  test  by  means  of  parallel  reports,  we  may^''^'^^ 
presume  that   it  is  also  true   of  some    others;   and    that    in 
speeches  recorded  by  only  one  Evangelist  there  is  not  ahvays 
a  verbatim  report,  but  often  one  that  preserves  the  thought 
with  variations  in  the  words.     So  far  as  the  Spirit's  guidance  The 
had  reference  in  all  these  cases  to  the  words,  it  either  guided  work  in 
or    permitted    the   writers    to    vary  the    phraseology,  yet  it 
always  prevented  such  a  license  as  would  involve  a  change  of 
meaning.      When  we  consider  how  difficult  it  is  to  change  the 
words  of  a  writer  or  .speaker  without  changing  his  meaning, 
we  can  see  that  the  Spirit's  controlling  power  even  in  these 
instances  was  not  inconsiderable. 

The  ignorance  of  the  Apostles  concerning  the  admission  J^JjJ'^^ 
of  the  uncircumcised  into  the  church,  up  to  the  time  of  the  \"°^g'^^,°g 
baptism  of  Cornelius,  is  another  modifying  fact,  and  the  more^ju°™® 
interestinir    from    the  consideration   that  it   involved   a   mis- 
understanding  of  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  great  commission, 
and  of  Peter's  own  words  in   his  address  on  Pentecost.     It 
shows  that  when  Jesus  said,  "  I  have  numy  things  to  tell  you, 
but  you  can  not  bear  them  now,"  he  had  reference  not  only  to 
the  time  then  ))resent,  but  to  some  years  in  the  future,  even 
after  th(!  first  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  it  shows 
that   the   promise   immediately  connected  with  this  remark, 
"  When  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  • 
the  truth,"  contemplated   not  an    immediate    illumination   on 
every    point,  but    a   gradual    illumination   according  as   (rod 
should  will.     The  same  is  true  of  their  expectation  concern- 
ing  the   second   coming  of  the  Lord.     If,  as  many  scholars 
supj)Ose,  they    at    first   thought  that  this  great   event   was  to 
occur  in  their  own  generation,  this  was  in  aecordance  wi(h 
the  (Icclaration  of  Jesus:  "Of  that  dav  or  hour,  knoweth  no 


198  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father."  If  it  ever  did  become  known  to  the  Apostles,  it 
must  have  been  by  a  special  revelation  of  which  we  have  no 
knowledge.  Yet  it  is  quite  certain  that  to  Paul  it  was 
revealed  that  a  great  apostasy  would  take  place  before  the 
second  coming  (II.  Thess.  ii.  1-12);  and  to  Peter,  that  after 
"  the  fathers  fell  asleep,"  that  is,  after  the  generation  to  which 
the  prediction  was  given  had  passed  away,  "  mockers  would 
come  with  mockery,  saying,  Where  is  the  promise  of  his 
coming?"  (II.  Pet.  iii.  3,  4).  This  again  shows  a  progressive 
leading  into  the  truth,  although  in  this  instance  the  exact 
time  of  the  event  was  still  \\ithheld.  It  has  been  argued 
from  Paul's  use  of  the  pronoun  "we"  in  speaking  of  those 
who  would  be  alive  at  the  second  coming  of  Christ  (I.  Thess. 
iv.  15,  17  ;  I.  Cor,  xv,  51,  52),  that  lie  expected  it  before  his  own 
death  ;  but  his  statements  concerning  the  great  apostasy  which 
was  to  occur,  ushering  in  the  career  of  the  "man  of  sin"  (II. 
Thess  ii.  1-12),  show  that  he  uses  "  we"  in  a  general  sense  for 
the  saints  who  will  then  be  alive,  and  not  for  those  of  his  own 
generation.  Before  dismissing  this  topic,  we  may  remark 
that  although  Peter  did  not  know  until  the  baptism  of  Cor- 
nelius that  uncircumcised  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  into 
the  church,  he  himself  uttered  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  words 
which  we  can  see  did  most  clearly  include  that  thought,  lie 
said:  "For  to  you  is  the  promise,  and  to  your  children,  and 
to  all  that  are  afar  oif,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  CxoA 
shall  call  unto  him,"  From  this  it  appears  that  under  the 
impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  uttered  words  the  full  import 
of  which  he  did  not  understand,  until  in  God's  good  time 
their  full  meaning  was  made  known  to  him  by  a  special  rev- 
•elation.  This  is  an  unmistakable  instance  of  being  led  to 
employ  words  expressive  of  a  meaning  which  was  in  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  but  not  in  that  of  the  speaker ;  an  instance,  in 
other  terms,  in  which  the  inspiration  affected  the  words  and 
not  the  thoughts  of  the  speaker.  It  is  much  like  those  pre- 
dictions of  the  older  proph(;ts  in  which  there  was  a  reference 
in  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  whi<h  was  not  perceived  or  thought 
of  by  the  prophet.     See  I.  Pet.  i.  10,  11. 


NKW     TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  199 

We  find  both  in  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles  that  the  inspired!**)  "^^f  , 

■•  *  imperfect 

Apostles,  though  possessing  and  exercising  all  the  wonderful  {^'^^''oj^tjjg 

powers  of  tlie  Spirit  promised  by  Jesus,  were  still  imperfect  1^,1^'/^ 

men  in  heart  and  life.     This  is  apparent  not  merely  from  such 

exhibitions  of  it  as  Peter's  dissimulation  and  the  contention 

between  Paul  and  Barnabas,  but  also  from  John's  confession  : 

"  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  w^e  deceive  ourselves,  and  the 

truth  is  not  in  us;"  "If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned,  we 

make  him  a  liar,  and  his  word  is  not  in  us"  (I.  Jno.  i.  8,  10). 

This  shows  that   the  inspiration  of  the   Apostles   was  not  a 

purification  of  their  spiritual  natures,  so  as  to  free  them  from 

sin;  but  an   enlightenment   of  their  minds,  so  as  to   enable 

them  to  teach  the  truth.     The  two  conceptions  are  often  con-no'i.^- 

r  consist- 

founded,  but  they  are  widely  different,  and  either  may  exist  ^^'^.^'jfj*^ 

in  a  person  without  the  other.     It  is  doubtless  true  that  to  be^P'""*''""- 

the   subject    of    inspiration    was   calculated    to    elevate    men 

spiritually;  and  that  God  usually  elected  only  good  men  for 

this  heavenly  gift;  but  still  to  be  inspired  and  to  be  spiritually 

good  are  two  distinct  conceptions  never  to  be  confounded. 

We  find  in  the  Epistles,  and  esi)ecially  in  tliose  of  PauLWPer- 
'■  '  .       ,  .         sonai  re- 

many  remarks  of  a  personal  character  which  do  not  contribute  {pa^ks  in 

to  the  doctrinal  j^urpose  of  the  documents;  such,  for  example, ^'^s- 
as  Paul's  many  salutations  of  persons  not  conspicuous  in  the 
history,  and  such  as  his  request  of  Timothy  to  bring  to  him 
his  cloak,  his  books,  and  his  parchments,  which  he  had  left  at 
Troas  with    Carpus    (II.  Tim.  iv.  13)  ;  and   for  all   these  he 
needed  no  aid  from  the  Holy  Spirit  either  to  know  them  or  to 
express  them.     In  such   instances  it  appears  that  the  guiding  l[.''?j.?[,*^'y 
power  exercised  by  the  Spirit  was  at  its   minimum,  and  yet {'j°',\'\^.^f, 
even  in  these  instances  there  was  room  for  its  exercise.     One'^^"^ 
of  the  most  puzzling  questions  to  the  author  of  a  serious  docu- 
ment, on  which  the  welfare  of  others  depends,  is  what  of  all 
that   he    knows   relating   to   the   subject   and    the  persons   he 
should   insert,  and  what   he  should   omit.     It  is  often  more 
difficult   to    make   a    wise   selection  than    it  is   to   obtain    the 
knowledge.     This  problem  would  cortainly  have  confronted 
Paul    if  he   had    enjoyed    no   su|>einatural    guidance,  and    he 
wmild  probably  have  omitted   these  apparently  small   matters 


200  INSPIRATION    OF     IJIK 

from  his  Epistles,  aud  written  tliem,  if  at  all,  iu  au  accom- 
panying note.  Especially  would  he  have  done  so  if  he  had 
anticipated  that  his  Epistles  would  be  read  in  distant  nations 
lont'-  after  his  decease.  But  if  he  had  omitted  them,  how 
value  to  '"ii^l^  tl^^'  ^^'*->rl<^^  would  liavc  lost.  We  should  huve  known 
"^  nothing  of  that  warm-heartednc.-s  toward  his  fellow  workers, 

and  that  tender  gratitude  toward  his  benefactors,  which  are 
revealed  in  his  personal  salutations  and  messages.  We  should 
not  have  known  that  in  his  Roman  prison,  when  winter  was 
coming  on  (II.  Tim.  iv.  21),  he  anticipated  the  need  of  that 
cloak,  that  he  wanted  his  books  to  read  in  tliose  lonely  hours, 
and  that  he  desired  his  parchments  in  order  to  do  more 
writing.  By  the  introduction  of  those  matters  a  cord  of  sym- 
pathy has  been  drawn  out  from  the  heart  of  Paul  to  the  hearts 
of  millions  of  believers  the  world  over,  and  an  incalculable 
amount  of  spiritual  good  has  been  thereby  accomplished.  This 
shows  the  consummate  wisdom  of  the  arrangement  by  which 
not  his  own  shortsighted  judgment,  but  the  divine  Spirit  who 
fore.-aw  all  the  future,  guided  him  as  to  what  he  should  insert, 
and  what  he  should  omit. 

Conclusions. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  ground  of  the  statements  and 

facts  relating  to  tlie  inspiration  of  the  New  Tci^tament  writers, 

and  we  are  prepared  to  sum  up  the  results.     We  state  them 

numerically  as  follows: 

The  1.  The  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  abide  |>ernuinently  in 

Spirit  *  ^      r  i      i         r  i 

Kiveuac-  tiic  Apostles  with   miraculous  power  was   made  by  Jesus,  and 
to  prom-   ij-    ^yjjj.  realized   in   the   experience  of  the   Twelve  from   and 

ise.  ' 

after  the  first  Pentecost  following  the  resurrection.  The  Spirit 
was  also  fn^ni  time  to  time  and  in  divers  j)laces  iniparted 
i)y  the  A|)ostles  to  other  faithfnl  jxTsons.  This  was  their 
inspiration, 
itguiirau-  2.  The  Spirit  thus  abiding  in  the  insfjired,  brought  to 
faithful     their  remembrance,  to  the   full   extent   that   was   needful,  the 

record  i       i  /• 

words  and  the  acts  of  Jcsn'-.  It  guaranteed,  therefore,  a 
record  of  these  words  and  acts,  precisely  snch  a-;  God 
willed. 


NEW    TESTA  MK NT    HOOKS.  201 

3.  It   brought  to   the    inspired    persons    revelations    con- J^'^.^^^J^. 
cerning  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future;  and  when  oeca-'"^""'' 
sion  required,  it  revealed  to  them  the  secret  thougiits  of  living 
men.     For  this  reason  we  can  rely  implicitly  on  the  correct- 
ness of  every  thought  which    these    men    have   expressed   on 
these  subjects. 

4.  The  Spirit  within  them  taught  them  liow  to  sneak  the^^'ed 

'■  °  *  tliem  to 

things  thus  revealed,  by   teaching  to  the  full  extent  needed '"-^  "'^' 

o  '      .'  o  most 

the  words  in  which  to  express  them;  yet,  in  quoting  others, ^^.'j^Jj'^^*^ 
not  always  the  exact  words;  and  it  demonstrated  (his  fact  to 
lookers-on  by  causing  the  inspired  at  times  to  speak  in  tongues 
which  they  had  never  learned,  but  which  were  known  to  thosi; 
who  heard.  This  aifords  a  perfect  guarantee  that  these 
revelations  were  really  made,  and  that  they  are  expressed  in 
the  most  suitable  words. 

5.  By  thus  acting  within  and   through  the  inspired  men, 'if "h- 
the  Spirit  enabled  them  to  speak  on  all  occasions,  even  when '*'«'"  'o 

^  ^  '  speak  as 

life  was  at  stake,  witliout  anxiety  as  to  how  or  what  thev  ^\'^y, . 
should  say,  and  to  speak  Mith  consummate  wisdom,  yet  with- "^','1^','^^^ 
out  premeditation.     It  brought  about   the  fact  expressed   in'-'""" 
the  Hebraistic  formula:  "It    is   not  ye   that   speak,   but   the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you." 

6.  The  Spirit  enabled    the   insiiired  on  all  suitable  occa   "   ,.  ^ 

^  i         ^  _      ^  enabled 

sions  to  demonstrate  the  presence  of  its  power  within  them,','"^'" '" 
by    manifestations   of  it   in    the    way    of  physical    "  po\vers,  f,',^^"'.'j,,. 
signs  and  wonders" — a  demonstration  which  the  human  mind  ^'"'^""""" 
has  ever  demanded  of  men  claiming  to  bear  messages  from 
God. 

7.  From  the  fact  that  these   men  spoke  and  wrote  as  the  '♦  ""^nrep 

iliviiu' 

Spirit  willed,  it  follows  that  what  thev  wrote  out  of  their  own  *l'iT;"'"' 

*  '       ^  '  n|  nil 

personal   experience  and  observation,  as  well   as   that  w liieh  ^^''"»'" 
was  revealed  to  iheni,  has   the   Spirit's,   approval  as  a  part  of 
the  record. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 


General  Various  objections  have  been  urged  against  the  conclusions 

ment.       enumerated   at  the  close  of  our  last   chapter,  some   of  them 

involving  a  general  denial  of  inspiration,  and  some  a  denial  of 

particular  conclusions.     Several  theories  of  inspiration,  which 

conflict  more  or  less  with  these  conclusions,  have  also   been 

propounded,  and   these  demand  attention   in   order  that   the 

whole  subject  may  be  before  the  mind  of  the  student.     We 

shall  consider  first  the   objections,  and  afterward  the  adverse 

theories. 

{jjj^bjec-         Paul   makes  some  statements  in   the   seventh   chapter  of 

l**/;^^^";  I.  Corinthians,  which  have  been  interpreted  to  mean  that  he 

^^'  wrote  that  chapter  without  inspiration.     In  the  course  of  the 

The  three  chapter   he  discusses   three    questions:    first,  the   wisdom   of 

questions  *  ... 

cussed-     niarriage  under  existing  circumstances,  and  of  the  temporary 


que 
dis- 
cussed ; 

separation  of  husband  and  wife  by  consent  (1-9);  second,  the 
pro})riety  of  separation  from  an  unbelieving  husband  or  wife 
(10-24);  and  third,  the  wisdom  under  existing  distress  of 
giving  virgins  in  marriage  (25-40). 

After  concluding  his  answer  to  the  second  branch  of  the 
l^^'^car-^  ji,.^t  inquiry  he  says:  "This  I  say  by  way  of  permission,  not 
n'i™he''     ^^  commandment."     This  has  been   understood  to  mean  that 
""''        he  was  permitted  to  Fay  tkis,  but  not  commanded;  and  that 
therefore  he  said   it  on   his   own    human   authority.     But  the 
context  clearly  shows  that  the  distinction  is  between  his  per- 
mitting and  his  commanding  the  hufiband  and  the  wije.     The 
remark,  then,  has  no  bearing  on   our  question,  unless  it  be  to 
show  that  Paul's  authorilv  was  so  suprenic  that  he  could  give 

(202) 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  20.) 

commands  or  grant  permission  to  the  disciples,  as  each  ap- 
peared proper. 

In  discussing  the  second  question  he  introduces  one  pre- ^^^^** "" 
cept  with  the  words,  "Unto  the  married  I  give  charge,  yea/^^°°**  = 
not  I,  but  the  Lord;"  and  another  with  the  words,  "  But  to 
the  rest  say  I,  not  the  Lord."  Here  he  has  been  supposed  to 
give  one  precept  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  and  the  other 
by  his  own  authority,  without  the  Lord's.  But  the  real  dis- 
tinction is  between  what  the  Lord  had  taught  in  person  while 
in  the  flesh,  and  what  Paul  teaches  as  an  apostle.  This  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  the  one  precept  is  found  in  the  sermon 
on  th'  mount,  and  the  other  is  not  found  in  any  of  the  Lord's 
personal  teachings.  It  is  also  proved  by  the  fact  that  after 
giving  the  precept  in  question  he  says:  "And  so  I  ordain  in 
all  the  churches"  (17). 

In  discussing  the  third  question  he  starts  out  by  saying:  J^J^'^'J^*^^® 
"Now  concerning  virgins,  I  have  no  commandment  of  the^*^""** 
Lord:  but  I  give  my  judgment  as  of  one  that  hath  obtained 
mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.  I  think,  therefore,  that  this 
is  good  by  reason  of  the  present  distress,  namely,  that  it  is 
good  for  a  man  to  be  as  he  is."  He  proceeds  to  state  at  length 
his  judgment,  and  then  concludes  with  the  words :  "  But  she 
is  happier  if  she  al>ide  as  she  is,  after  my  judgment :  and  I 
think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  Here,  after  begin- 
ning with  his  human  judgment,  he  ends  with  the  words,  "  I 
think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God."  Does  he  mean  to 
express  a  mere  opinion,  with  attending  doubt,  that  he  had  the 
Spirit  of  God?  If  so,  it  follows  that  on  this  one  point  he  was 
not  certain  that  lie  was  guid<'d  l)y  inspiration  ;  and  as  he  ex- 
presses no  such  doubt  on  anything  else  in  his  writings,  it 
would  follow  that  on  this  ahme  did  he  have  any  such  doubt. 
But  if  Paul  thought  he  had  the  Spirit,  why  should  we  think 
that  he  had  not  ?  Surely  he  had  better  grounds  on  which  to 
form  an  opinion  than  we.  But  even  this  consideration  does 
not  bring  us  to  the  end  of  the  matter.  In  the  words,  "  I 
think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God,"  the  second  I  is 
emphatie.  as  appears  from  th<'  fact  that  instead  of  lieing  under- 
stood from   thr   pcMsou   of  tin-  verb,  as  the  rule  is  when  there 


204  INSPIRATION    OF   THE 

is  no  emphasis,  it  is  expressed  {doxco  ok  xdyco  -\^z'jim  deob 
^X^r>).  The  term  also  (xa:)  connected  with  it  adds  to  the 
emphasis;  and  t!ie  effect  of  the  whole  is  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that  he  also  had  the  Spirit  as  well  as  somebody  else.  There 
were  men  in  the  church  at  Corinth  with  spiritual  gifts;  and 
it  is  probable  that  their  authority,  or  that  of  some  other 
Apostle,  had  been  arrayed  by  misrepresentation  against  his ; 
so,  in  order  to  silence  any  such  plea  for  disregarding  his  teach- 
ing on  the  subject,  he  closes  the  discussion  with  tiie  modest 
but  very  emphatic  reminder  that  he  spoke  by  inspiration, 
whether  others  did  or  not.  This  passage,  then,  furnishes  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  doubt  of  its  own  inspiration. 
(2)  Pauls        In  ^vritine:  to  the  Corinthians,  Paul   speaks  of  one  matter 

lapse  of  o  '  '        _ 

memory,  j^  ^^jc^  hig  memory  had  failed.  After  mentioning  the  names 
of  some  among  them  whom  he  had  himself  baptized,  he  says: 
"Beside,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other"  (I.  Cor. 
i.  16).  This  lapse  of  memory  is  held  as  proof  that  lapses  of 
memory  in  general,  and  consequently  other  mistakes  of  a  like 
nature,  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  inspiration  which  the 
Apostles  claimed.  But  they  did  not  claim  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  to  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance ;  the 
promise  was  limited  to  the  things  which  Jesus  had  taught; 
and  the  reference  here  is  to  something  that  Paul  had  done. 
Doubtless  we  may  understand  that  the  promised  aid  implied 
a  remembrance  of  all,  whether  spoken  by  Jesus  or  not,  that 
might  be  necessary  in  any  manner  to  their  official  work  ;  but 
in  the  instance  here  mentioned  there  was  no  such  necessity, 
seeing  that  his  argument  was  complete  witiioutit;  and  it  is 
for  this  reason,  perhaps,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  supply 
the  missing  facts,  or  that  Paul  did  not  refresh  his  own  mem- 
ory by  makin<r  proper  iiujuiry. 

ci)  Pauls        Xhe   fact  that  Paul   rebuked  the  high  priest,  not  knowint; 

rebuke  of  _  r>      i  '  t? 

'!'-",.«f'*^''  who  he  was,  and  then,  on  learning,  a})()l()gized  (Acts  xxiii.  1-5), 
has  been  used  by  some  as  evidence  against  inspiration.  It  is 
held  that,  if  inspired  at  all,  he  would  have  known  who  the 
man  was  whom  he  rebuked,  and  that  he  would  not  have  made 
a  speech  for  which  he  owed  an  apology.  But  this  is  to 
assume,  as   in  thr   last    instance,  that  it   was  the  work  of  the 


New  testament  hooks.  205 

Spirit  to  make  known  to  tlu-  inspired  man  everything  that  he 
(lid  not  know.  Wv  mii.st  keep  in  mind  that  ite  work  was  not 
this,  but  to  guide  them  into  just  that  amount  of  truth  and 
knowledge  which  was  needful  for  the  work  to  which  they 
were  called.  If  now  we  inquire  whether  the  Spirit  guided 
Paul  sufficiently  on  this  occasion,  without  revealing  to  him 
that  the  presiding  officer  was  the  high  priest,  I  think  we  shall 
answer  in  the  affirmative.  When  the  person  in  question  com- 
manded that  he  he  smitten  in  the  mouth  for  merely  saying, 
"  I  have  lived  in  all  good  conscience  before  God  until  this 
day,"  it  was  proper  that  he  should  be  told,  "God  shall  smite 
thee,  thou  whited  wall."  And  when  Paul,  afler  saying  this, 
was  told  that  the  man  was  the  high  priest,  it  was  certainly 
most  becoming  in  Paul,  without  retracting  a  word,  to  say  to 
the  bystanders,  "  I  knew  not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the  high 
priest:  for  it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  not  speak  evil  of  a  ruler 
of  thy  people."  It  is  probable  that  the  Holy  Spirit  withheld 
the  information  from  him  that  he  n)ight  not  feel  restrained 
from  uttering  a  rebuke  which  was  greatly  needed  on  the  occa- 
sion, and  which  was  in  reality  a  judicial  divine  sentence.  The 
promise  was  that,  when  brought  before  governors  and  councils, 
the  Spirit  should  give  them  what  to  say  ;  and  surely  no  one 
can  pretend  he  did  not  on  this  occasion  say  the  very  best 
thing  that  could  have  been  said. 

It  has  been  charged  that  Paul  reasoned  erroneously,  and  '^'^'''"'■B'? 

.  ...  .  •'  '  (>i  fiille- 

that  this  refutes  the  claim  of  inspiration.  The  instance  most '■'""^  •■««■ 
usually  cited  is  the  following:  "Now  to  Aljraham  were  the 
promises  spoken,  and  to  his  seed.  He  saith  not.  And  to  seeds, 
as  of  many ;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ" 
(Gal.  iii.  16),  It  is  alleged  that  Paul  here  argues  from  a  false 
premise  in  assuming  that  if  God  meant  more  than  one  seed 
he  would  have  used  the  plural  number,  whereas  the  word  seed 
in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  as  in  English,  is  a  collective  noun,  and 
is  used  in  the  singidar  form  whether  the  reference  is  to  one  or 
many.  But  Paul  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  this  usage; 
for  he  was  botii  a  Cilreek  and  a  Hebrew  scholar,  and  a  lucie 
tyro  in  the  grammar  of  citlier  language  would  know  this  mucli. 
If  special  proof  that    Uv   knew  it  were    lU'i^dcd,  we   have   it   iu 


20G  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

verse  29  of  this  very  chapter^  where  he  uses  the  singular 
number  of  this  word  to  include  many,  saying,  "  If  ye  are 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."  Moreover,  he  was  writing  to  Greek-speaking 
people,  every  one  of  whom  with  the  least  intelligence  was 
acquainted  with  this  usage. 

Paul's  real  purpose  in  the  passage  is  to  teach  that  although 
God  used  a  term  which,  as  every  Hebrew  scholar  knew,  could 
convey  the  idea  of  plurality,  it  was  not  plurality  that  he 
meant.  In  other  words,  he  teaches  that  God  did  not  mean  all 
of  Abraham's  offspring,  although  he  used  a  term  which  might 
be  so  construed.  The  passage  is  an  authoritative  interpre- 
tation of  the  mind  of  God  in  a  promise  which  was  purposely 
made  obscure  by  the  use  of  an  ambiguous  term,  and  left  so 
until  the  time  of  the  fulfillment,  when  its  obscurity  was  cleared 
up  by  this  inspired  apostle.  And  it  must  be  conceded  tha 
were  it  not  for  this  interpretation,  no  human  being  could  to 
this  day  know  that  such  was  God's  meaning.  So  far  as  Paul 
employs  argument  in  the  case,  it  is  used  not  to  prove  that  his 
interpretation  is  correct,  but  to  show  that  his  interpretation 
is  not  precluded  by  the  terms  which  God  employed.  If  God 
had  said  seeds  instead  of  seed,  the  interpretation  would  have 
been  inadmissible,  whether  the  phraseology  employed  had  been 
grammatical  or  not;  for  it  would  unquestionably  have 
expressed  the  idea  of  plurality.  Whether  it  would  have  been 
grammatical  or  not,  depends  on  the  question  whether  reference 
was  had  to  individuals  or  to  kinds  of  offspring.  In  the  latter 
case  the  j)luial  is  rightly  employed  in  English,  as  when  we 
say,  a  dealer  in  seeds;  and  we  liave  at  least  one  instance  in 
which  Paul  himself  employs  it  in  Greek.  In  his  argument  on 
the  resurrection  (I.  Cor.  xv.  37,  38),  he  says:  "That  which 
thou  sowest  thou  sowest  not  the  body  that  shall  be,  but  a  bare 
grain,  it  may  chance  of  wheat  or  of  some  other  kind  ;  but  God 
giveth  it  a  body  even  as  it  pleased  him,  and  to  each  of  the 
seeds  {kxdazoj  rwv-  aTTSff/idTcou)  a  body  of  its  own."  Here,  by 
"each  of  the  seeds,"  he  means  not  each  individual  grain  (>f 
wheat;  but,  having  specified  wheat  or  some  "other  kind,"  he 
refers  to  the  different  kinds  of  bodies  which  he  gives  to  the 


NEW    TKSTAMENT   BO(JK.S.  207 

different  kinds  of  seeds.  The  Septuagint  version,  Paul's  Cireek 
Bible,  has  live  instanees  of  the  same  use  of  this  word  in  the 
plural  (Lev.  xxvi.  1()  ^  T.  Sara.  vlii.  15  ;  Ps.  cxxv.  6;  Is.  Ixi.  11 ; 
Dan.  i.  12,  16),  and  the  Hebrew  text  has  one  (T.  Sam.  viii.  15). 
Did  Paul  then  refer  to  kinds  of  posterity  ?  He  certainly  did ;  for 
in  this  chapter  he  makes  believers  in  Christ  one  kind,  being 
children  of  Abraham  l)y  faith  in  Jesus,  though  not  children 
literally;  and  in  the  next  chapter  he  makes  Isaac  and  his 
descendants  another  kind,  being  children  by  promise  and  also 
children  literally ;  and  he  makes  Ishmael  and  his  posterity 
still  another  kind,  being  children  of  the  flesh  and  not  of  the 
promise  (iv.  -3;  28,  29).  So,  then,  here  are  at  least  three 
kinds  of  children  of  Abraham,  making  three  kinds  of  seeds 
clearly  distinguished  from  one  another,  and  furnishing  ground, 
if  such  had  been  the  will  of  God,  for  the  use  of  the  plural, 
"  seeds." 

One   of  the   most  common   grounds   for  denying  the   in- Iff ^fllftMi^ 
spiration  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  especially  such  ^''"ons. 
inspiration  as  could  guard  them  from  error,  is  the  allegation 
that  they  contradict  one  another,  and  that  they  also  contradict 
known  facts  of  history  and  science.     But  while  this  charge  is 
boldly  and  confidently  made,  it  has  never  been  made  good.        ^ 
We  have  considered  in  a  former  chapter  the  most  j)lausible 
efforts  to  make  it  good,  and  found  them  all  fallacious;  and  we 
ahall  therefore  give  it  no  further  consideration  here. 

The  same  class  of  men  who  deny  inspiration  on  account  of^^j^^'^'^'**' 
the  alleged  contradictions  between  the  writers,  also  deny  it  on  {^>p"n  ,'{,^^; 
account  of  their  agreements.    The  striking  agreements  in  many  ^^'■'*'^" 
pa.ssages  between   the  three   synoptic  Gospels,  agreement   in 
minute  details  and  even  in  words,  is  held  to  be  inconsistent 
with   their  guidance  by  a  common  Spirit,  and  to  demand  an 
inquiry   into   the   common    human    sources   from   which    they 
obtained  their  information.     It  is  very  clear  that  John  and 
Matthew  needed  no  human  sources  except  their  own  remem- 
brance  of  events   which    they   had   witnessed,   together  with 
direct  information   from    other  witnesses  of  a  few   incidents 
which   did    not   come    immeiliatcly  under  their  eyes.     As  for 
Mark  and  Luke,  thev  must  of  course  have  d(M*ived  their  infor- 


208  INSPIRATION    OF    TH  K 

mation  from  others.  The  question,  then,  as  to  how  it  happened 
that  Mark  and  Luke  have  so  much  matter  in  common  with 
Matthew,  while  it  is  one  of  curiosity,  can  not,  by  any  answer 
which  may  be  given,  affect  the  inspiration  of  any  one  of  them. 
If  they  copied  largely  from  some  original  document,  or  if 
they  adopted  much  from  what  had  been  orally  repeated  by  the 
early  preachers,  they  may  have  done  either  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first  preacher  was  Peter;  and 
he  was  led  to  present  such  aspects  of  the  career  of  Jesus  as 
were  known  by  the  Spirit  to  be  best  calculated  to  convince 
and  win  the  first  hearers  of  the  Gospel.  The  others,  seeing 
this  eifectiveness,  were  doubtless  led  by  their  own  judgment, 
as  well  as  by  the  promptings  of  the  Spirit,  to  follow  in  his 
track.  Even  Paul,  when  preaching  to  the  Jews  in  Antioch 
of  Pisidia,  used  much  of  the  same  matter  employed  by  Peter 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  and  if  this  is  true  of  the  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  certainly  would  all  of  the 
original  Twelve  and  the  preachers  who  started  under  their 
instruction  do  the  same.  In  all  ages  since,  when  a  great  re- 
ligious movement  has  been  started  by  the  preaching  of  a  small 
number  of  men  acting  in  concert,  both  they  and  their  first 
co-laborers  have  uniformly  employed  for  a  considerable  time 
the  same  arguments  and  illustrations  which  were  found  efiect- 
ive  at  the  beginning.  It  is  but  a  dictate  of  common  sense 
that  they  should  do  so.  Why  should  it  be  thought  strange, 
then,  or  inconsistent  with  their  inspiration,  that  the  first 
gospel  writers  followed  largely  the  same  h'ne  of  narrative? 
Doubtless  if  either  had  known  what  the  other  two  had  written, 
and  had  been  left  to  his  own  impulse,  he  would  have  avoided 
repeating  so  much;  and  on  this  supposition  there  is  need  of 
adding  the  supposition  of  an  overruling  power  just  such  as 
the  Holy  Spirit  exorcised.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they  all 
wrote  independently,  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  led  them  to 
choose  so  much  matter  in  common  for  the  very  purpose  of 
securing  to  the  world,  without  tlie  knowledge  of  the  men 
employed  for  the  purpose,  this  threcfohl  presentation  of  a 
certain  portion  of  the  Lord's  life.  In  any  view  of  the  facts, 
thfn,  they  contain   nothing  to  throw  doubt  on   the  Saviour's 


SEW    TESTAMENT    J500KS.  209 

promise  of  inspiration,  or  on  the  apostolic  testimony  that  the 
promise  was  fulfilled. 

The  varieties  of  style  employed  by  New  Testament  writers,  {[^j,^,^"''' 
of  which  we  have  spoken  in  chapter  iv.,  is  held  by  many^^^^^ 
as  proof  that  the  Holy  Spirit  exercised  no  guidance  over  the 
words  of  the  inspired ;  and  by  some,  as  proof  that  there  was 
no  miraculous  inspiration  at  all.  It  has  been  assumed  tliat  if 
the  writers  had  been  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  they  would 
all  have  Avritten  in  one  style,  the  style  of  the  Spirit.  But  this 
is  to  assume  that  the  Holy  Spirit  either  could  not  or  would 
not  guide  each  within  the  range  of  his  own  style  and  his  own 
vocabulary.  Either  assumption  is  baseless,  and  therefore  the 
conclusion  is  illogical. 

With  still  more  confidence  it  has  been  urged  that  the  de-WFree 

^uota- 

partures  from  literal  quotation  which  we  have  already  noticed  ^^ons. 
in  quoting  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  words  of  Jesus 
and  his  interlocutors,  disproves  inspiration  with  respect  to  the 
words.  If  it  docs,  it  also  disproves  it  with  reference  to  the 
ideas;  for,  as  we  have  seen,  in  varying  the  words  the  ideas 
are  also  varied  in  .some  instances.  But  this  objection  can 
have  force  in  either  direction  only  on  the  assumption  that  if 
the  Spirit  guided  at  all  he  would  allow  no  free  quotation  of 
the  sense  in  different  words,  and  that  he  would  never  quote  his 
own  previously  expressed  thoughts  with  variation.  To  point 
out  these  a.ssumptio^ns  is  to  set  aside  the  objection. 

The  question  has  been  asked,  What  could  be  the  utility  |jons^n  *' 
of  giving  an  infallibly  correct  text,  seeing  that  it  has  been °"'' ^''^^ 
cojrupted  by  the  mistakes  of  transcribers,  and  that.  God 
knew  it  would  be  thus  corrupted  when  he  gave  it?  It  is 
admitted  that  so  far  as  the  text  has  been  corrupted  beyond 
po.ssibility  of  correction,  it  has  been  rendered  useless;  but 
what  is  the  extent  of  such  corruption?  Wc  have  seen  in 
Part  First  that  we  now  pos.sess  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
thou.*^andths  of  the  text  precisely  as  it  was  given  to  us,  and 
that  nearly  all  of  the  other  one  tliousandth  jiurt  has  been 
settled  with  almost  absolute  certainty.  The  objection,  then, 
is  fallacious,  in  that  it  aims  to  spread  over  the  whole  book  Ihe 
»!liadow  of  doubt  which    rvally  affects  only  a  very  small   part, 


tions. 


210  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

and  a  part  which  is  definitely  known,  and  which  is  so  marked 
in  our  latest  English  version  as  to  point  it  out  to  the  most 
unlearned  reader.  It  might  as  well  be  asked,  Why  keep  in 
our  clerk's  offices  perfect  standards  of  weights  and  measures, 
seeing  tliat  many  of  those  in  use  agree  but  imperfectly  with 
them  ?  The  answer  is,  we  want  the  perfect  standard  in  order 
that  we  may  regulate  the  instruments  in  use,  and  thus  keep 
them  as  nearly  perfect  as  possible.  In  like  manner  we  need 
an  infallible  text  of  the  Scripture  to  begin  with,  in  order  that 
we  may  ever  correct  our  copies  by  it  and  keep  them  as  nearly 
like  it  as  possible ;  and  the  fact  that  the  church  has  succeeded 
in  keeping  her  books  precisely  like  the  original  text  in  almost 
every  word  through  eighteen  centuries  is  one  of  the  marvels 
of  that  divine  providence  which  watches  over  all  things  good 
and  true, 
depe^d^-  Again  it  has  been  asked.  What  is  the  utility  of  an  in- 
transfa"  fallible  original,  seeing  that  nearly  all  men  have  to  depend  on 
fallible  translations,  and  then  on  fallible  interpretations,  in 
order  to  get  the  meaning?  The  obvious  answer  is,  that  if 
we  have  an  infallible  original,  so  far  as  we  get  its  real  mean- 
ing through  our  translations  and  interpretations,  we  have  the 
infallible  truth ;  whereas,  if  the  original  is  itself  a  flillible 
document,  we  are  still  a  prey  to  uncertainty  when  its  meaning 
is  obtained.  Moreover,  this  objection,  like  the  preceding  one, 
assumes  too  much.  It  assumes  that  the  fallible  interpreter, 
with  his  fallible  translation,  is  unable  to  obtain  with  certainty 
the  meaning  of  the  original ;  whereas  the  fact  is  that  he  can 
and  does  obtain  it,  with  the  exception  of  occasional  passages 
which  are  obscure.  While  it  is  true  that  in  the  Bible  there 
are  some  words  and  some  sentences  whose  precise  shades  of 
meaning  can  not  be  conveyed  with  unerring  certainty  in  other 
than  the  original  tongues,  and  a  few  whose  meaning  is  not 
clear  to  proficient  scholars  in  the  original,  still  it  is  true  that 
the  great  mass  of  words  in  any  language  can  be  translated  into 
other  tongues  with  absolute  precision.  To  such  an  extent  is 
this  true,  that  every  translator  is  conscious  of  rendering  much 
that  he  translates  so  as  to  convey  the  thought  with  unmistak- 
able accuracy,  and  every  reader  of  a  book  knows,  in  regard  to 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  211 

the  chief  part  of  it,  that  he  has  the  meaning.  As  a  conse- 
quence, in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  much  the  greater  part  of 
the  Bible  there  is  absolutely  no  difference  of  opinion.  Such 
a  consequence  could  not  exist  if  the  assumption  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  the  objection  were  a  reality.  There  is,  then,  good 
cause  for  giving  us  an  infallible  book ;  for  we  do  get  its 
meaning  in  the  main  with  infallible  certainty  ;  and  it  so 
happens  with  nearly  all  men  who  study  it  with  diligence  and 
candor  that  the  part  whose  meaning  they  obtain  without  fail 
is  the  part  most  necessary  to  their  present  good  and  their  final 
salvation. 

The  force  of  these  objections,  whether  combined  or  taken  ^^^J^^^Pj^ 
singly,  instead  of  weakening  the  evidence  for  inspiration  inwhofe*^*^ 
any  of  its  particulars  as  set  forth  in  chapters  first,  second  and 
third,  only  tends  to  exhibit  more  fully  its  manifold  working 
for  our  good,  and  to  prove  the  wisdom  of  bestowing  on  the 
New  Testament  writers  precisely  that  kind  of  inspiration  set 
forth  on  the  sacred  pages.  It  meets  the  Avants  of  our  souls, 
and  accomplishes  the  benevolent  purposes  of  that  Holy  Spirit 
who  "breathes  where  he  listeth,"  and  causes  us  to  hear  his 
voice. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


ADVERSE  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION. 


the^pre-^^        Instead  of  propounding  a  theory  of  inspiration,  our  course 
iavesti-     ^^^^  been  to  examine  in  detail  the  New  Testament  statements 
gauon.      ^vhich  bear  directly  on  the  subject,  setting  these  forth  as  con- 
clusions, and   then  searching  for  other  facts  and  statements 
which  might  in  any  way  modify  the  conclusions.     In  doing  so 
we  have  come  into  conflict  with  certain  theories  on  the  subject 
which   have   found   more  or  loss  acceptance  among  scholars, 
and  it  is  now  proper  that  we  test  these  theories  by  the  facts 
which  we  have  collected. 
i?o^eaiied         ^-   ^^^^  begin  with  that  which   is  styled  the   Mechanical 
Mechani-  Theory,     This  theory  has  been  defined  as  teaching  that  not 
*  ^°^^'     only  "the  sense  of  Scripture,  and  the  facts  and  sentiments 
therein   recorded,  but  each  and  every  word,  phrase  and  ex- 
pression, as    well    as    the   order   and    arrangement    of  such 
words,  phrases  and  expressions,  has  been  separately  supplied, 
breathed  into,  as  it  were,  and  dictated  to  the  writere  by  the 
Spirit  of  God."  ' 

If  this  theory  had  been  propounded  to  explain  the  miracle 
of  speaking  in  tongues  alone,  it  would  seem  to  be  adequate; 
for  in  that  particular  instance  absolute  dictation  of  all  that 
was  uttered  certainly  took  jdace.  But  this  is  not  true  of 
inspired  utterances  in  general.  The  theory  fails  to  account 
for  the  play  of  the  writer's  human  feelings ;  and  for  the  obvi- 
ous facts  that  in  recalling  to  their  memory  what  Jesus  had 
said  the  Sp'rit  only  recalled  what  they  did  not  already  re- 
member; and  in  guiding  them  into  all  truth  he  did  not  guide 
them  into  that  which  they  already  possessed.     The  theory  is 

'  Lee,  On  Lmprraiion,  33.  and  note. 
(212) 


Its  inade 
quucy. 


NEW    TErSTAMKNT    ROOKH.  213 

then  inadequate  because  it  can  account  for  only  a  small  part 
of  the  facts,  and  it  is  in  conflict  with  some  others. 

Some  early  writers  who  seemed  to  hold  to  this  theory  ^||fts  of 
have  illustrated  it  by  performance  on  a  musical  instrument.  I^^y 
Thus  Justin  Martyr  says  that  the  Spirit  "  acted  on  just  men  as^""'^" 
a  plectrum  on  a  harp  or  lyre  ;  "  Athenagoras,  that  inspired 
men  "  uttered  that  which  was  wrought  in  them,  the  Spirit 
using  them  as  its  instruments,  as  a  flute  player  might  play  a 
flute;  "  and  Hyppolitus,  that  they  "  were  brought  to  an  inner 
harmony,  like  instruments,  and  having  the  Word  within 
them,  as  it  were  to  strike  the  notes,  by  him  ther  were 
moved,  and  announced  that  which  God  wi.shed."'  It  is  not 
probable  that  these,  and  other  ancient  writers  with  whom 
this  figure  was  common,  regarded  the  inspired  men  as  always 
passive,  as  a  musical  instrument  is  in  the  hands  of  the  musi- 
cian, although  when  speaking  in  tongues  they  were  very 
nearly  so  ;  but  they  probably  used  this  figure  to  illustrate  a 
single  feature  of  the  work,  that  of  the  Spirit's  action  and  the 
ready  response  of  the  inspired  mind.  As  a  representation  of 
the  whole  work  it  is  clearly  inadequate.     It  would  be  nearer  4, '^•^er 

•'  *■  illustra- 

the  truth  to  compare  the  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  to  that  of"*'"- 
driving  a  well  trained  horse.  You  draw  the  lines  to  the 
right  or  the  left  as  you  see  that  the  horse  needs  guidance;  vou 
check  him  when  ho  would  go  too  fast,  and  urge  him  forward 
when  he  would  go  too  slow;  but  he  usually  keeps  tiie  road 
and  maintains  the  desired  gait  and  speed  of  his  own  accord; 
still  your  hand  is  ever  on  the  lines,  and  its  pressure  on  the 
bit  is  constantly  felt,  so  that  you  are  controlling  the  horse's 
movements  when  he  is  going  most  completely  at  his  own  will. 
Indeed,  the  horse  is  all  the  time  going  very  much  at  his  own 
will,  and  vet  he  is  never  without  the  control  of  the  driver. 

This  illustration,  however,  although  it  covers  much  more  j*^^^^*"" 
of"  the  ground  than  the  former,  is  still  defective,  for  you  oan'^"**** 
not  drive  a  horse  over  preeipitous  hillsides,  nor  can  you  make 
him  trot  without  touching  the  ground;  but  the  Spirit  enabled 
the  inspired   to  do  things  comparable  to  these  —  to  speak  in 

'!^eo  these  al\«l  other  citationR  in    Wostcott's     Introihiction.     Appen- 
Lee    Oil    In^pirntidu,   Appendix    S;    dix  B. 


214  CREDIBILITY    OF   THE 

tongues  never  learnetl,  and  to  look  into  the  secrets  of  the 
spiritual  and  the  eternal  world.  In  this  last  respect  alone 
does  the  comparison  to  performance  on  a  musical  instrument 
seem  appropriate  ;  and  lest  we  disparage  it  below-  its  merits, 
let  us  remember  that  as  the  exact  tone  brought  out  by  the 
performer  depends  on  the  cliaracter  of  the  instrument  as  well 
as  on  the  skill  of  the  j>erformer,  so  when  the  Spirit  acted  on 
the  inspired  the  words  cjome  forth  in  the  style  and  vocabulary 
of  the  writer, 
ordinary^  2.  At  the  opposite  extreme  from  the  preceding  is  the 
tion.'™  theory  of  ordinary  inspiration,  so  styled  because  it  recognizes 
only  an  ordinary,  as  opposed  to  a  miraculous,  exercise  of  the 
Spirit's  power.  It  holds  that  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  minds  of  the  inspired  was  not  different,  unless  it  be  in 
degree,  from  that  influence  which  it  exerts  on  the  uninspired 
Christian.'  This  theory,  which  is  semi-rationalistic,  is  not 
defective  merely,  but  it  is  contradictory  to  all  the  statements 
adduced  in  former  chapters  which  set  forth  the  miraculous 
nature  of  the  Spirit's  action.  We  dismiss  it,  therefore,  without 
further  consideration. 
Theory  of       3.  We  next  consider  the   theory  which  assumes  different 

dcRrees  of  •' 

uon-'^"  degrees  of  inspiration.  Certain  Jewish  writers  of  the  middle 
ages  originated  this  theory,  and  applied  it  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment bdoks,  wliich  were  divided  into  three  classes  according 
to  the  degree  of  inspiration  supposed  to  be  possessed  by  their 
authors.  In  more  recent  times  it  has  been  accepted  and 
applied  to  the  New  Testament  by  some    Christian   writers.* 

\"uY  "^^^  essential  objection  to  it  is  that  inspiration  is  a  fact,  and 
not  a  quality  which  admits  of  degrees.  It  is  the  fact  of  an 
active  force  exerted  by  the  Spirit.  This  force  may  have 
different  degrees,  but  the  fact  can  not.  The  movement  of  the 
air  called  wind  is  a  fact,  whether  the  movement  bo  rapid  or 
slow.  T\w  force  with  which  it  moves  may  vary  in  degree,  but 
not  the  fact  that  it  moves.  So,  the  degree  of  intensity  with 
which  the  Spirit  acted  on  the  inspired  might  differ,  as  it  doubt- 

'  Lee,  O/i   fnspirntion,  'M,  Appon-       -  See  citations  by  Lee  and  Farrar, 
dix  C;  Farrar,  AW»(/  on  In^pirdtion,    referred  to  in  last  not*'. 
Ser.4;  Curtis, On  /)j«/)jrrf/?o?),ol.'218. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  215 

less  did,  being  greater  wluii  the  inspired  man  spoke  in  tongues 
than  when  he  mentioned  incidents  in  his  own  experience ;  but 
the  inspiration  itself  was  one  and  the  same  fact  throughout. 
As  a  theory  of  inspiration,  then,  even  if  it  were  confined  to  the*^^  '^'Jj^ 
degrees  of  power  exercised  by  the  Spirit,  it  would  express  no 
more  than  one  obvious  feature  of  the  Spirit's  work,  and  would 
leave  all  the  rest  out  of  sight. 

4.  Still  another  theorv,  which  has  been  stvled  the  essential  "^'i*^    .  . 

'  essential 

theory,'  teaches  that  the  sacred  writers  were  guided  by  the ''"'"'■>■ 
Holy  Spirit  in  all  matters  essential   to  the  great  purposes  of 
revelation,  such  as  matters  of  doctrine,  morals  and  faith;  but 
that  in  all  other  matters  they  were  left  to  their  natural  powers, 
and  that  therefore  they  were,  in  regard  to  these,  as  liable  to 
mistakes  as  other  men.     The  chief  objection  to  this  theory,  in^^j^!!""'""*" 
the  light  of  our  collation  of  New  Testament  statements,  is  that  |"™pt,jr^. 
a  very  large  portion  of  the  matter  found  in  the  speeches  ofthcmt^nts; 
apostles,  and  in  their  writings,  to  which  reference  is  made  in 
the  promises  of  Jesus,  consists  of  just  such  matter  as  is  ex- 
cluded by  the  theory  from   inspiration  ;  and  thus  the  theorv 
contradicts  the  divine  promises  which  are  mentioned  by  the 
sacred  writers  as   having  been   fulfilled.     It  is  also  obvious 
that  if  the  apostles  were  liable  to  error  in  matters  of  ordinarv 
knowledge,  in  regard  to  Avhich  we  have  the  means  of  testing 
them,  this  would  necessarily  throw  discredit  on  all  that  thevanddis- 
say  ot  things  in  which  we  can  not  test  them.     Keally  our  con- «" 
fidence   in  what  they  say  of  doctrine,   of  the  will   of  God, 
and    of  moral    and    spiritual    truths  aud    facts,  is  based  on 
their  perfect  reliability  concerning  things  within  the  range  of 
our  investigation.     And  as  to  their  liability  to  make  mistakes, 
inasmuch  as  they  do   not  avow  such   liability,  the  only  way 
that  we  can  know  that  it  existed  is  by  discovering  mistakes 
which  they  have  made:  this,  we  have  seen  in  Part  Third,  has 
not   been  done.-     This  theory,  then,   with   its  other  defects, 
makes  a  gratuitous    admission    unfavorable   to   the    inspired 

'  Farrar, /.  r. ;  AUord,  Prolegonifna  est  ingrenuity  of    Bkepticism   ever 

to  Commrntary,  sec.  vii.  pointed  out  one  complete  an'1  do- 

'"That  they  did  so  err,  I  am  not  monstrable  error  of  fact  or  doctrim 

so  irreverent  as  to  assert,  nor  has  in   the    Old  or  New  Testament.  " 

the  widest  learning  and  the  acut-  Farrar,  Ijeciure  on  Inspiration,  sec.  6. 


216  inspiration;  of  the 

writers,  and  it  must  for  this  reason,  if  for  no  othei",  be  re- 
jected, 
dynamic-  ^-  "^^^  theory  most  commonly  accepted  by  scholars  who 
ai  theory.  gj,g  ,^q^  inclined  to  be  rationalistic  on  the  subject,  is  stvled  the 
dynamical  theory.  It  is  defined  by  Lee  as  the  theory  "  which 
implies  such  a  divine  influence  as  employs  man's  faculties 
according  to  their  natural  laws.'"  F.  W.  Farrar  says  of  it: 
"  It  holds  that  Holy  Scripture  was  not  dictated  by,  but  com- 
mitted to  Avriting  under  the  guidance  of,  the  Holy  Spirit."^ 
Westcott,  in  defining  it,  says:  "The  human  powers  of  the 
divine  messenger  act  according  to  tlieir  natural  laws  even 
when  these  powers  are  supernaturally  strengthened ;"  and  in 
regard  to  the  word  dynamical,  with  which  he  expresses  some 
dissatisfaction,  he  says:  "It  is  used  to  describe  an  influence 
acting  upon  living  power*-,  and  manifesting  itself  through  them 
according  to  their  natural  laws,  as  distinguished  from  that 
influence  which  merely  uses  human  organs  for  its  outward 
expression;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  accounts  of  the  demoniacs." 
He  might  have  added,  as  also  in  the  account  of  the  Spirit's 
action  on  King  Saul.  He  adds  to  his  definition,  as  still  further 
setting  forth  his  conception  of  the  subject,  the  following  state- 
ments :  "  It  supposes  that  the  same  providential  power  wliich 
gave  the  message  selected  the  messenger;  and  implies  that 
the  traits  of  individual  character  and  the  peculiarity  of  man- 
ner and  purpose  wliich  arc  displayed  in  the  composition  and 
language  of  the  sacred  writings,  are  essential  to  the  perfect 
exhibition  of  their  meaning."  .  .  .  "  It  preserves  absolute 
truthfulness  with  perfect  humanity,  so  that  the  nature  of  man 
is  not  neutralized,  if  we  may  thus  speak,  by  the  divine  agency, 
and  the  truth  of  God  is  not  impaired  but,  exactly  expressed,  in 
one  of  its  several  aspects,  by  the  individual  mind."^ 
Its  value.  This  theory  is  an  attempt  to  state  the  method  in  which 
the  divine  Spirit  and  the  human  soul  were  united  in  produc- 
ing the  sacred  writings,  and  thui^  far  it  harmonizes  with  the 

andiu     facts  which  wc   have  collected   from   the  Scriptures.     But  it 
defect.  ' 

goes  no  further  than  this;  it  leaves  us  still  dependent  on  the 

'  Lee,  On  Inspiration,  39.  •  Introduction  to  Study  of  Oospi'ls, 

'  T.rrttire  on  Inspiration,  sec.  4,  ii.      39,  41. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  217 

promises  and  their  fulfillment,  together  with  the  modifying 
facts  which  we  have  collected  from  the  Scriptures,  for  the 
details  of  the  outworking  of  this  combination.  We  may  safely 
say,  then,  that  no  theory  which  has  been  propounded  covers 
correctly  the  whole  ground  of  the  Spirit's  work  in  inspiration; 
but  that  the  subject  as  a  whole  can  be  understood  only  by 
taking  into  view,  and  keeping  in  view,  all  the  facts  and  state- 
ments which  have  formed  the  conclusions  laid  down  at  the 
close  of  chapter  v. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CONFIRMATORY  EVIDENCE. 

The  direct  and   positive  evidence  of  inspiration   is  that 
which  we  have  given  in   previous  cha])ters,  especially  in  the 
n-om^a*^^^  first  three.     In  addition  to  this,  there  are  considerations  based 
fn^h'ea   o^  t^^6  characteristics  of  the  writers,  which,  though  they  might 
^^^  not  suggest  or  prove  inspiration,  if  considered  alone,  furnish 

strong  confirmatory  evidence  to  support  the  Scripture  state- 
ments.    While  the  fact  noted  in  a  former  chapter,  that  these 
writers  were  left  each  to  his  own  natural  style,  does  not  mili- 
tate against  the  conclusion  that  they  were  all  inspired,  yet  we 
should  naturally  suppose  that  if  the  Holy  Spirit  guided  them 
they    would  possess  in   common    some    peculiarities   of  style 
resulting  from  this  guidance.     This  supposition  accords  with 
the  facts,  as  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show. 
(1)  In  ihe        We  mention,  first,  the  purely  dramatic  form  in  which  all 
form  of    qP  jJ^(3  New  Testament  writers  depict  the  characters  of  men. 
uon.        They  allow  all  of  the  actors  in  the  scenes  which  they  describe 
to  play  their  several  j)arts  without  a  word  of  comment,  with- 
out an  expression  of  approval  or  disapproval,  and    entirely 
without  those  attempts  at  analysis  of  character  in  which  other 
historians  indulge.     We  believe  that  tiiey  stand  alone  in  this 
respect;  and  the  fact  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  con- 
sider the  great  variety  of  striking  cluiraclers  which  figure  upon 
their  pages. 
j2)  In  the        Next  we  notice  the  unexampled  impartiality  with  which 
Sf'the^"^  they  record  facts,  speaking  with  as  little  reserve  concerning 
writers     ^j^^  ^^j^^^  ^^^  follies  of  themsclvcs  and  their  friends  as  of  the 
wicked    deeds   of  their   enemies;    as    freely,  for    inslanec,  of 
Peter's  denial   of  his   Lord,  as  of  the   malice  and  cruelty  of 


lon- 
mnn- 
er. 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  219 

Caiaphas.     This  characteristic  is  so  prominent  that  it  has  not 
escaped  the  notice  of  any  tlioughtful  reader. 

Not  less  strildug  is  the  imi)erturbable  calmness  with  which  j-^^'^'^i 
they  trace  the  current  of  liistory,  relating  with  as  little  appar-i'^^^r" 
cut  feelini;  the  most  wonderful  and  exciting  events,  as  those"'" 
the  most  trivial;  as  calmly,  for  instance,  the  final  sufferings 
of  Jesus  as  the  fact  of  his  taking  a  seat  on  Peter's  fishing-boat 
to  address  the  people.  They  appear  to  have  been  restrained 
by  some  supernatural  power  from  giving  natural  utterance  to 
the  intense  feeling  which  burned  within  them,  or  to  have  been 
lifted  above  all  human  weakness,  so  as  to  speak  like  him, 

"  Who  sees  with  equal  eye,  as  God  of  all, 
A  hero  perish,  or  a  sparrow  fall ; 
Atoms  or  systems  into  ruin  hurled, 
And  now  a  bubble  burst,  and  now  a  world."  ' 

We  next  observe  the  unaccountable  brevity  of  the  New  their 
Testament  narratives;  and  first,  their  brevity  as  whole  books,  countable 

1         1  1        •  1  1  •     'Jrevity : 

Never  were  men  burdened  with  a  theme  so  momentous  in 
their  own  estimation,  or  so  momentous  in  reality,  as  that  of 
the  four  Evangelists.  Never  were  writers  so  oppressed,  ifoospeis; 
brevity  were  aimed  at,  by  the  multitude  of  the  details  before 
them,  and  tht  ditTiculty  of  determining  what  to  leave  out  when 
the  welfare  of  a  world  depended  on  what  should  be  written. 
One  of  them  shows  the  oppression  of  his  own  mind  by  these 

'  "  What  reader  has  failed  to  no-  "Their  history,  from  the  narra- 

tioe  how  the  cold  sententionsness  rative  of  our  Lord's  per.secution  to 

of  Tacitus  expands  into  tenderness,  those  of  Panl,  the  abomination  of 

and  warms  with  passion,  when  he  the    .Tews,    embraces    scenes    and 

turns  aside  to  weep  over  the  last  persona<:?es  which  claim   from  the 

moments  of   Agiicola?     But  com-  ordinary  reader  n  continual  eflusion 

pare  with  this  natural  outpouring  of  sorrow,  or  wonder,  or  indigna- 

of  feeling  the  record  of  the  evan-  tion.     In  writers  who  were  friends 

gelists.    There  no  expression  of  hu-  of  the  i)arties,  and  adherents  of  the 

man    sympathy    accompanies    the  cause  for  which  they  did  and  sni- 

story  of  the  agony  in  the  garden,  fered  so  great  things,  the  ab-'cnce 

the  awful  scene  before  Pilate,  the  of   it  is,  on  ordinary  grounds,  in- 

horrors  of  the  cross.     No  burst  of  comprehensible."      Bishop  Ilmds, 

emotion  attends  the  Ma.ster's  body  On  Jtispiration,  83.     See  Gaussen, 

to  the  grave,  or  welcomes  his  res-  Origin  arid  Inspiration  of  thr  Rihlr, 

urrcrtion."    JjVO, On  fnnpimfinn, 229.  280-202. 


as 


220  INSPIRATION    OF    THE 

details,  when  he  is  forced  to  exclaim  in  hyperbolic  style  :  "If 
they  should  be  written  every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the 
world  itself  would  not  contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written."  What  then  could  have  led  these  four  writers,  thus 
pressed  by  the  copiousness  of  their  matter,  the  importance  of 
their  theme,  and  their  burning  desire  to  defend  and  exalt  their 
Master,  to  compress  their  accounts  into  an  average  of  fifty -four 
small  pages  of  long  primer  type?  \\  hat,  but  some  overruling 
to  Acts;  and  superhuman  power?  As  to  the  book  of  Acts,  tiie  argu- 
ment is  the  same  in  kind,  and  perhaps  greater  in  force;  for 
this  writer  had  to  deal  with  the  widespread  progress  and  ever- 
varying  fortunes  of  the  church  through  a  period  of  thirty  years, 
the  most  thrillingly  intercGting  period  of  all  its  history;  aad 
yet  he  condenses  all  into  about  the  same  number  of  pages. 
astoindi  When,    secondlv,    we    notice    their  brevity  as    to    particular 

viflnal  111-  _       ^  •  '  ^  •'  1 

cificnts.  incidents,  the  wonder  continues  the  same.  The  baptism  of 
Jesus,  for  instance,  accompanied  as  it  was  by  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  upon  him,  and  his  f  )rmal  acknowledgment  by 
God  in  an  audible  voice  from  heaven,  is  disposed  of  in  twelve 
lines  by  the  first  Evangelist,  in  six  each  by  the  second  and 
third,  and  in  a  mere  allusion  quoted  from  another  person  by 
the  fourth.  Of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection, 
of  which  there  were  twelve  in  all,  only  two  are  mentioned  by 
the  first  Evangelist,  only  three  by  the  second,  only  three  by 
the  third,  and  only  four  by  the  fourth.  In  Acts,  the  disper- 
sion and  apparant  destruction  of  the  only  church  then  planted 
is  recorded  in  four  lines ;  and  the  deatli  of  the  Apostle  James, 
a  calamity  of  fearful  magnitude,  is  disposed  of  in  eleven  words. 
If  it  were  truly  said  of  Jesus,  "Never  man  spake  like  this 
man,"  it  could  be  as  truly  said  of  his  historians,  Never  men 
wrote  as  these  men;  and  the  logical  inference  is  that  they 
wrote,  as  he  spoke,  from  the  fullness  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
(5)  In  tnc  The  argument  from  the  brevity  of  the  narratives  is  not 
able  seen  in  its  full  force  until  it  is  viewed  in  connection  with  the 
from  the  remarkable  omissions  by  which  it  was  brought  about.     For 

narra- 

Mves.  example,  by  Mark  and  John  the  whole  of  tlie  first  thirty  years 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  is  left  blank;  and  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
all  between  his  infancy  and  his  thirtieth  year  is  omitted,  except 


^■E\V    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  221 

a  .single  incident  recorded  by  Luke.  3y  the  Synoptists  all  of 
the  visits  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  except  the  last  are  omitted, 
and  by  John  all  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  except  a  single 
miracle  and  a  conversation  which  grow  out  of  it.  From  Acts 
are  omitted  nearly  all  the  labors  of  ten  apostles,  and  from  the 
career  of  the  one  whose  labors  are  most  fully  recorded  many 
of  the  most  thrilling  incidents  are  omitted.  Who,  uncon- 
strained by  some  higher  power,  could  have  omitted  from  the 
narrative  the  details  of  those  heart-stirring  incidents  in  the  life 
of  Paul,  which  are  merely  mentioned  by  him  in  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  chapters  of  Second  Corinthians?  And  who,  while 
inserting  the  detailed  account  of  the  voyage  from  Csesarea  to 
Rome,  could  have  been  willing  to  omit  the  account  of  Paul's 
trial  before  Nero? 

We  mention  next  their  anerelology.  Amoner  men  of  all  ("^  Their 
nations  there  has  existed  a  fondness  for  depicting  invisible "^"^J- 
beings ;  hence  the  demigods,  fairies,  genii,  and  sylphs  of 
ancient  and  modern  story,  all  either  grotesque,  childish, 
impure,  or  malicious.  In  contrast  with  these,  the  angels  of 
the  New  Testament  and  of  the  whole  Bible  are  hply,  mighty, 
humble,  compassionate,  self-poised,  and  every  way  worthy  to 
be  the  messengers  of  God.  This  character  is  uniformly  main- 
tained whenever  and  wherever  angels  appear  in  any  part  of 
the  book.  "Unlike  men,  they  are  always  like  themselves." 
Nothing  like  them  was  ever  conceived  by  any  other  class  of 
writers,  or  depicted  in  any  other  literature.  They  are  so 
unlike  the  creations  of  human  imagination,  that  the  latter 
has  not  allowed  the  divine  picture  to  remain  as  it  was;  but 
Christian  poets  and  painters  have  falsely  and  persistently  given 
to  angels  the  form  of  woman.  It  is  incredible  that  all  of  this 
is  the  product  of  the  unaided  powers  of  shepherds,  fishermen, 
herdsmen,  and  publicans  of  those  early  and  dark  ages,  and  of 
such  men  among  just  one  people,  and  that  not  the  most 
imaginative.  Supernatural  aid  is  clearly  implied,  and  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration  alone  accounts  for  the  phenomenon. 

In   the  seventh   place,  we   notice  the  air  of  infallibility '^  Thtir 

.  .  .  '   assump- 

which  tlte  writers  of  the  New  Testament  everywhere  assume. ""","/ 
Though  they  speak  on  some  themes  which  have  baffled  the ''•'">• 


222  INSPIRATION    OF    I  HE 

skill  of  all  other  thinkers  and  writers,  such  as  the  nature  of 
God,  his  eternal  purposes,  his  present  will,  angels,  disem- 
bodied spirits,  the  introduction  of  sin,  its  forgiveness  and  its 
punishment,  the  future  of  this  earth,  and  the  final  destiny  of 
us  all  ;  on  all  subjects  and  on  all  occasions  they  speak  with 
unhesitating  confidence,  never  admitting  the  possibility  of  a 
mistake.  They  were  the  most  arrogant  of  men,  next  to  Jesus 
himself,  in  whom  this  characteristic  was  preeminent,  if  they 
were  not  inspired. 
inhlrent  Finally,  we  mention  the  inherent  power  of  the  New  Tes- 
fhei"  °^  tament  to  convince  tlie  reader  of  its  own  divine  origin,  and  to 
writings.  jm,yg  }^jj^j  to  holy  living.  That  it  has  such  power  in  a  most 
remarkable  degree  is  the  testimony  from  experience  of  every 
believer.  As  to  its  self-evidencing  power,  it  is  the  testimony 
of  a  vast  multitude  that  it  has  been  the  chief  cause  of  turning 
men  from  unbelief  to  belief;  and  its  power  to  move  in  the 
direction  of  holy  living  is  attested  by  the  whole  host  of  the 
good  and  pure  in  every  Christian  age  and  country.  This  was 
the  expectation  of  the  writers,  one  of  whom  expressly  declares 
that  his  purpose  in  writing  was  that  his  readers  might  believe, 
and  that  believing  they  might  obtain  eternal  life ;  and  it  was 
also  the  expectation  of  Him  who  promised  them  the  Holy 
Spirit;  for  he  said:  "When  he  is  come,  he  will  convince  the 
world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  Now  it  is 
not  of  the  nature  of  error  or  of  falsehood  to  effect  such 
beneficent  changes  in  human  character:  these  are  the  product 
of  truth  alone;  and  herein  is  :i  final  and  conclusive  evidence 
that  the  writers  of  the  Ncm-  Testament  books  wrote  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Thu  in  We  have  now  com])leted   four  of  the   inquiries  which  we 

"Hiirii's 

thus  far    undertook   in   the   beginning  of  this  work.     We  have  found 

com-  _  °  '^ 

pieted    'that  the   original   text  of  the   New  Testament  has  been  pre- 

111  this  o  I 

work.  served  in  such  a  way  that  the  many  errors  of  transcribers 
which  crept  into  it  in  the  course  of  ages  have,  by  the  diligence 
of  Christian  scholars,  been  discovered  and  corrected  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  guard  both  the  Greek  scholar  and  the  English 
rea<ler  from  being  misled  thereby.  We  have  found,  in  the 
second  place,  that  all  of  ihe  separate  books  of  th(\  volume  are 


NEW    TESTAMENT    BOOKS.  223 

traced  back  by  sati.'sfaclory  eviilouce  to  the  authors  to  whom 
they  are  credited  —  that  they  are  geuuiue  writings.  In  the 
third  phice,  wo  have  found  ample  evidence  that  all  of  their 
representations  of  the  personal  career  of  Jesus  are  thoroughly 
reliable,  and  that  he  is,  therefore,  the  Christ  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament prophets,  and  the  real  Son  of  God.  We  have  found, 
lastly,  that  these  writers  were  guided  in  all  that  they  wrote 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  impart^id  to  them  for  the  very  purpose 
of  such  guidance ;  and  that  what  they  have  written  was 
written  precisely  as  God  willed.  We  have  thus  gone  over  all 
the  ground  of  evidenc^e  necessary  to  the  proof  of  the  divine 
origin  anti  authority  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  record3  of  it  contained  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  while  the  remaining  inquiries  which  we  proposed  at  the 
out.set  are  necessary  to  the  vindiciation  of  the  whole  Bible,  the 
line  of  evidence  now  before  the  reader  is  complete  in  reference 
to  the  Christian  religion  as  distinguished  from  the  Jewish  and 
the  Patriarclial. 


u^^f^' 


% 


^7j»  '   Tir^v    f!^-'   -"^  ^ 


n 


^'^W. 


* 


i^w^'MLM^^v^k  r^'rm'M', 


^^/Sj 


Date  Due 


^  j-^?5 


^^^5^ 


.^y:^ 


OCT 


^: 


2^^^~ 


I 


5L  i..,  .V-  '^ 


^P.^'^T^S 


\       // 


y>. 


:^ 


.i    *^  '^ 


41?^ 


^n.'. 


T 


-.^^* 


y^ 


^.  ■■!;■; 


^'.'  -,^. 


Si     ^<C[ 


\ 


f^'\<x5^    -f}^ 


<5^;'Jii 


:x^1^ 


'^ 


>w. 


v^ 


^4i.  v': 


'•^ei 


"^^JIPh 


^^ 


4f  ■»■ 


BS2332.M14V.1 
Evidences  of  Christianity 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00052  5131 


